VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Declares Rent Increase Notice Invalid

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a landlord's notice proposing a new rent was invalid because it did not meet all the necessary requirements set out in the Housing Act 1s 13 and 14.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord's notice proposing a new rent must comply with all statutory requirements to be valid.

Topics

tenancy agreementrent increase noticevalidity of notice

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, excluding relevant low-cost tenancies. It allows landlords to serve a notice proposing a new rent in a prescribed form, specifying a new period for the tenancy starting at least two months after the notice's service. If the rent has been previously increased, the next increase can only occur after a specified period, which varies based on the type of tenancy.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

This section provides tenants under assured tenancies the right to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy, provided the rent is not pursuant to a previous determination under this section and more than six months have not elapsed since the tenancy began.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal found the landlord's notice invalid due to non-compliance with the third requirement of the law.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined that a landlord's notice proposing a new rent was invalid because it did not comply with the third requirement of the law, as set out in the Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

1

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : MAN/00CH/MNR/2021/0046

Property : [ADDRESS], Newcastle upon Tyne [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

: Application by the Tenant Referring a Notice Proposing A New Rent Under an Assured Periodic Tenancy Housing Act 1988 Section 14 (the “Act”)

Tribunal Members : [NAME] D [NAME] TD BA BSc FRICS K Usher

Date of determination : 8 September 2021

______________________________________________

DECISION __________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021

2

Background

1 By way of an Application dated 30 April 2021 the Applicant, the Tenant of the Property, referred to the Tribunal an Application (the Application) referring a notice of increase in rent (the Notice) by the Landlord of the property under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.

2 The Notice is dated 19 March 2021 and proposed a new rent of £1,400.00 per month instead of the existing rent of £1,200.00 per month to take effect from 1st May 2021.

3 The Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Application and fixed the date of 8 September 2021 to consider the matter. Neither Party requested a Hearing. Each Party was invited to submit representations to include photographs and all relevant details as due to Tribunal COVID restriction rules the Tribunal are not permitted to inspect internally. Representations were received from both parties, including a copy of the Tenancy Agreement, and detailed photographic Schedule of Condition/Inventory.

4 For reasons which will become clearer below the Tribunal do not intend to detail these submissions.

Inspection

5 The Tribunal inspected the Property externally. Again for reasons which will become apparent later the Tribunal do not intend to detail the Accommodation, nor deal with either the comparables put forward by either Party, nor indeed issue a Decision in respect of the rental value.

The Law

6 The Tribunal first had to determine that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the Application by reference to the validity of the Notice, in order to determine a rent under S14 of the Act. In short the Tribunal must determine that the landlord’s notice under Section 13 (2) satisfied the requirements of that section and was validly served.

7 The Act provides in section 13(2) as amended by the Regulatory Reform (Assured Periodic Tenancies) (Rent Increases) Order 2003 that the date in paragraph 4 of the Landlord’s notice (the date the new rent becomes payable) must comply with three requirements.

8 The first requirement is that a minimum period of notice must be given before the proposed new rent can take effect.

9 The second requirement is that the starting date must not be less than 52 weeks after the date on which the rent was last increased using this procedure although there are exceptions to this.

3

10 The third requirement is that the proposed new rent must start at the beginning of a period of the tenancy (see paragraph number 17 of the Guidance Notes forming part of the prescribed form of the Landlord’s Notice).

11 Section 14 of the Act requires the Tribunal to determine the rent at which it considered the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing Landlord under an Assured Tenancy in so doing the Tribunal is required by Section 14 (1) to ignore the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenants’ improvements as defined in Section 14 (2) of the Act.

12 Only if a landlord’s notice complies with each of the requirements referred to above does a Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine a rent under section 14 of the Act.

The Tribunal’s Decision

13 The Tribunal were provided with a copy of the original Assured Tenancy Agreement dated 23 November 2018 between the Landlord [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and the Tenants [APPELLANT] and [NAME] . The Agreement is stated to be for a term commencing 23.11.2018, ending 31.7.2019 at a commencement rent of £1,000 per calendar month. At paragraph 2 of the Agreement it is stated that the first rent payment shall be made on 23.11.2018, thereafter, payments are due on the first day of each month.

14 The Landlord’s Notice stated the Landlord proposed a new rent of £1,400 per month in place of the existing one of £1,200 per month. The starting date for the new rent is stated to be 1 May 2021.

15 The appropriate procedure to initiate a proposed new rent is as set out in Section 13 of the Act.

16 The Tribunal find the Notice to be invalid for the following reason:

The Tenancy commenced on 23.11.2018, and the first rent payment was due on that date. Whilst future rent payments were to be made on the first day of each month that does not change the commencement date of the Tenancy. The Notice does not therefore comply with the third mandatory requirement of the Law as set out in paragraphs 6 to 12 above.

20 The Tribunal determine that the Landlord’s Notice is invalid. The Tribunal therefore does not have jurisdiction to determine a rent under Section 14 of the Act.

[NAME] 8 September 2021

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The tenant challenged the rent increase due to non-compliance with statutory requirements.
  • The landlord's notice did not meet the mandatory requirements of the Housing Act 1988.
  • The tenant was entitled to continue paying the existing rent due to the landlord's notice non-compliance.
  • The tenant successfully argued that the landlord's notice failed to comply with section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988.
  • The tenant was entitled to a reduced rent due to vermin infestation issues unrelated to the notice compliance.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The court dismissed the case because the statutory requirements were not the main issue in the case.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision declared the landlord's notice proposing a new rent invalid.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the notice was invalid because it did not comply with the third requirement of the law.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the notice did not comply with the third requirement of the law.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was against the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure their notice complies with all statutory requirements.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The Tenancy Agreement and the Notice proposing a new rent were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.