First-tier Tribunal Invalidates Landlord's Rent Increase Notice
📌 In brief
A tenant challenged a notice proposing an increase in rent under a tenancy that was not periodic. Judge J Holbrook ruled the notice invalid as it did not comply with the Housing Act 1988, s13(2). This means the rent increase cannot be enforced.
⚖️ Legal holding
Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 does not apply to tenancies that are not periodic.
📖 What the law says
This section applies to certain types of periodic tenancies that are assured tenancies, excluding those that are relevant low-cost tenancies. It allows landlords to serve a notice proposing an increase in rent under specific conditions, including the timing of when the new rent can take effect.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tenancy is not subject to the Housing Act 1988, s13(2), thus the rent increase notice is invalid.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tenant challenged a notice proposing an increase in rent under a tenancy that was not periodic. Judge J Holbrook ruled the notice invalid as it did not comply with the Housing Act 1988, s13(2).
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
Case Reference : MAN/00EJ/MNR/2019/0046
Property : [ADDRESS]
[POSTCODE]
Applicants : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL]
Respondents : [redacted]
& Mrs [COUNSEL]
: Mr [COUNSEL] of Application : Housing Act 1988, s13(2)
Tribunal Member : Judge J Holbrook
Date of Decision : 17 September 2019
_______________________________________________
DECISION ____________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
2 DECISION
The tenancy of the Property is not one to which section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 applies. Consequently, the rent payable under the tenancy cannot be increased by a notice given under section 13(2).
The notice of increase which the landlords gave on 30 May 2019 is therefore invalid and has no effect on the rent payable under the tenancy.
As there is no valid notice of increase, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine a market rent for the Property.
REASONS
1. On 25 June 2019, the Tribunal received an application from [NAME] [NAME] (the tenants of the Property) concerning a notice proposing an increase in the rent payable under their tenancy. That notice had been served by the respondent landlords and is dated 30 May 2019. It proposed that the amount of the rent payable by [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] should increase from 1 July 2019.
2. The landlords’ notice was purportedly given under section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988. That provision enables a landlord to increase the rent payable under a tenancy by giving the tenant a notice in prescribed form. However, the section 13 procedure does not apply to all tenancies: it only applies to certain periodic tenancies.
3. A periodic tenancy is one which is not granted for a finite period, but instead runs from month to month or week to week, for example. It is clear that the tenancy under which [NAME] [NAME] hold the Property is not a periodic tenancy. Their tenancy was granted on 1 January 1994 and let the Property to them from 1 August in that year for a term to continue throughout their lifetimes. The tenancy reserved a fixed rent of £40 per week with no provision for that rent to be increased.
4. Whilst I note that, in June 1998, [NAME] [NAME] appear to have agreed to pay an additional £10 per week in rent, I am satisfied that the landlords have no right to increase the rent unilaterally – whether by giving notice under section 13 of the 1988 Act or otherwise. The notice they gave on 30 May is invalid and it has no effect on the amount of rent which [NAME] [NAME] must pay.
5. The parties have been informed of the Tribunal’s provisional view that, in these circumstances, it lacks jurisdiction to determine the market rent for the Property, and I have taken account of the representations they have made in response.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Decision — Case 4173138
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £580/Month Rent for Assured Tenancy in Margate
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Reasonable Service Charges for Fire Safety Mea…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £146 Weekly Rent for Assured Tenancy in Newcastle
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Special Needs Accommodation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment for Assured Shorthold Tenancy Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal rules service charges unreasonable for leaseholders in Birmingham
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Reduces Financial Penalties for Housing Offences
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal reduces service charges for assured tenancy in York
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 claimant successfully argued that the Housing Act 1988's Section 13(2) does not apply to non-periodic tenancies.
- Service charges were deemed reasonable if they covered necessary services or repairs at a reasonable standard.
- Tenants were granted rent adjustments based on the property's condition compared to open market standards.
- Fair rents were calculated based on the property's condition and market comparables.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The court refused the landlord's request for dispensation from consultation requirements without demonstrating urgency.
- Service charges were partially dismissed due to unclear evidence of reasonableness and necessity.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ruled that a notice proposing a rent increase under section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 was invalid for a tenancy with a fixed rent term.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether a notice proposing a rent increase was valid for a tenancy with a fixed rent term of £40 per week.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the notice was invalid because the tenancy agreement did not allow for periodic rent increases, thus the notice could not increase the rent.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenancy agreement did not allow for periodic rent increases, making the notice proposing a rent increase invalid.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, as the notice proposing a rent increase was deemed invalid.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, a notice proposing a rent increase may be invalid if the tenancy agreement does not allow for periodic rent increases.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The tenancy agreement and the notice proposing a rent increase were the key pieces of evidence considered by the court.
