VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Rejects Invalid Rent Increase Notice

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled that a landlord's notice for increasing rent was invalid because it did not meet legal requirements. As a result, the tenant can continue to pay the current rent until a valid notice is served.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to continue paying rent as per the existing agreement if a landlord’s notice of increase does not comply with statutory requirements under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

tenancyrent increases

Provisions

Housing Act 1988 s.13Regulatory Reform (Assured Periodic Tenancies) (Rent Increases) Order 2003

📖 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 increase, provided the notice is in the prescribed form and specifies a new period for the tenancy starting at least two months after the notice is served.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined it lacks jurisdiction due to the landlord's notice not complying with statutory requirements.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled that a landlord's notice of rent increase was invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988, allowing the tenant to continue paying the existing rent.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/42UJ/MNR/2026/0020 Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicants (Tenant)

: [APPELLANT] Landlord : [APPELLANT]

Landlords Agent

: [NAME] of [NAME] : Section 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Determination of market rent payable. Tribunal member(s)

:

[NAME](Hons)

Date of Decision : 24 February 2026

DECISION

This has been a hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the parties. The documents that I was referred to are in individual responses produced by the Applicant and the Respondent. I have noted the contents and my decision is below. Background

1. On 2 February 2026 the Applicant, the Tenant of [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (The Property), made an [NAME] (the [NAME]) to the Tribunal 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 30 December 2025 and proposed a new rent of £825 per month instead of the existing rent of £700 per month, to take effect from 3 February 2026

2 3. Alongside the [NAME] form was a copy of the tenancy agreement which under the heading Term paragraph 9, it states the commencement date of the tenancy is 5th October 2023. At paragraph 13 it states ‘the tenant will pay the rent on or before the 5th day of each and every month…’

4. The Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the [NAME] and wrote to both parties on 5 February 2026 to indicate that Tribunal’s preliminary opinion was that it may not have jurisdiction to consider the matter because it did not appear to take effect at the commencement of a new period of the tenancy. Both parties were given an opportunity to make representations in response, these needed to be received 19 February 2026.

5. On 9th February 2026, the Tribunal received an email from [NAME], this email contained reference to various points regarding the validity of the notice. Firstly, that the tenancy began in October 2023, so the first anniversary passed in October 2024, prior to the notice being served in December 2025. Secondly, they state that the statutory timing requirements were fully satisfied as this was served 3 months into the periodic tenancy and 27 months after the tenancy began. Thirdly, they state that the section 13 notice, served in December 2025 to take effect in February 2026, meets all statutory requirements and is valid.

6. The Tribunal did not receive any representations from the Tenant.

The Law

7. The Tribunal has to determine that it has jurisdiction to hear the [NAME] 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 that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make a determination

8. 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

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

10. 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.

11. The third requirement is that the proposed new rent must start at the beginning of a period of the tenancy

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.

3

Issues

13. The Tribunal explained to both parties that it would only deal with the question of jurisdiction at this stage. It would issue further directions in respect of the the market rent should it be satisfied that it had jurisdiction to determine that rent.

The Tribunal’s Decision

14. The tenancy agreement was for a certain term of 12 months, commencing on 5th October 2023. The agreement states that the rent is payable on 5th of each month.

15. The Landlord’s notice states the date for the new rent shall be 3rd February 2026. However, the beginning of a period of the tenancy is the 5th of the month. The Notice does not therefore appear to comply with the third mandatory requirement of the Act as set out in paragraph 11 above.

16. In the absence of a valid notice of increase the Tribunal determines it has no jurisdiction to consider the case. The existing rent will continue to be payable until such time as a valid notice of increase is served.

[NAME](Hons) Regional Surveyor

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), on a point of law only, then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

4 The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e., give the date, the property, and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 is entitled to challenge a rent increase if the landlord’s notice does not comply with statutory requirements.
  • A tenant can have their rent set at a reasonable market rate based on comparable properties and the condition of the property.
  • A tenant is entitled to have their proposed rent increase reviewed by the First-tier Tribunal under sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
  • A landlord may obtain retrospective dispensation from statutory consultation requirements if there is no evidence of real prejudice to the tenants.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • A tenant's application for market rent determination under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 is struck out if there is a binding provision allowing rent increases.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal decided that the landlord’s notice of rent increase was invalid.

Who was involved?

A tenant and their landlord were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court ruled that the notice did not comply with statutory requirements under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Housing Act 1988 s.13 and Regulatory Reform (Assured Periodic Tenancies) (Rent Increases) Order 2003 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was whether the notice complied with statutory requirements for rent increases.

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

The decision was in favour of the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should check if their landlord's notice complies with statutory requirements before paying an increased rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The tenancy agreement and the notice of increase were key documents.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions can often be appealed to a higher court within a specified time frame.

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

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent increases.

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.