First-tier Tribunal Rejects Invalid Rent Increase Notice
📌 In brief
A tenant challenged a landlord's notice of rent increase, claiming it was invalid. However, the First-tier Tribunal found they lacked the authority to hear the case due to errors in the notice itself.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's a person for review of a defective notice of rent increase is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
📖 What the law says
This section of the Housing Act 1988 outlines the process for landlords to increase rents under assured periodic tenancies, excluding relevant low-cost tenancies. It specifies that a landlord can serve a notice proposing a new rent, which must take effect at least two months after the notice is served. There are additional conditions regarding the timing of rent increases based on the type of tenancy.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the case due to an invalid notice of rent increase.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tenant applied to the First-tier Tribunal to challenge a landlord's notice of rent increase, arguing it was invalid. Mrs E Flint ruled the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the case due to defects in the notice.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2014
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BG/MNR/2021/0011 P:PAPERREMOTE
Property : 6 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] Respondent : [redacted] : Decision in Relation to S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Member : [NAME] and venue of Hearing : Remote hearing on the papers Date of Decision : 30 April 2021
DECISION
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this [NAME] for the reasons stated below.
This has been a hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all the issues could be determined on the papers. The documents that I was referred to are in an electronic file, the contents of which I have recorded.
2 Background:
1. The landlord served a notice of increase on the tenant which stated that the current rent is £20 per week and proposed a new rent of £600 per week from 23 September 2020.
2. The tenant’s applications referring the landlord’s notice to the Tribunal was dated 3 September 2020.
3. The Tribunal wrote to the parties advising that it was its preliminary opinion that the Tribunal may not have jurisdiction to consider the [NAME] because “It appears that the landlord’s notice may be defective because it does not specify the correct amount of the existing rent nor does it take effect from the commencement of a new period.
4. In response the landlord’s agent confirmed that a determination based on the papers was acceptable but provided no further information.
5. The tenant also agreed that the matter could be dealt with on the papers and stated that she was of the opinion that the Notice was invalid and had advised the managing agent of her opinion. She said that the managing agent required confirmation from the Tribunal.
The Law:
6. The statutory provisions relating to when the tenant may refer the notice to the tribunal are contained in section 13 of the Act:
Facts Found
7. The tenant inherited an assured tenancy on the death of her father. The tenancy commenced on 12 November 1999 which was a Friday.
The Tribunal’s decision
8. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the [NAME]. However the proposed rent is not payable because the Notice of Increase is invalid.
Reasons for the Decision
9. The Landlord’s notice is invalid because the existing rent is £16.25 per week from 9 August 2019 following a decision of the Tribunal dated 20 September 2019; the landlord’s notice states that the existing rent is £20 per week. The proposed start date for the new rent is a Wednesday, the tenancy commenced on a Friday.
3
Chairman: [NAME]
30 April 2021
Appendix of relevant legislation
Section 13 Housing Act 1988
Increases of rent under assured periodic tenancies. (1) This section applies to— (a)a statutory periodic tenancy other than one which, by virtue of paragraph 11 or paragraph 12 in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act, cannot for the time being be an assured tenancy; and (b)any other periodic tenancy which is an assured tenancy, other than one in relation to which there is a provision, for the time being binding on the tenant, under which the rent for a particular period of the tenancy will or may be greater than the rent for an earlier period. (2)For the purpose of securing an increase in the rent under a tenancy to which this section applies, the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice in the prescribed form proposing a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy specified in the notice, being a period beginning not earlier than— (a)the minimum period after the date of the service of the notice; and (b)except in the case of a statutory periodic tenancy (i)in the case of an assured agricultural occupancy, the first anniversary of the date on which the first period of the tenancy began; (ii)in any other case, on the date that falls 52 weeks after the date on which the first period of the tenancy began; and (c)if the rent under the tenancy has previously been increased by virtue of a notice under this subsection or a determination under section 14 below (i)in the case of an assured agricultural occupancy, the first anniversary of the date on which the increased rent took effect; (ii)in any other case, the appropriate date (3) The minimum period referred to in subsection (2) above is— (a)in the case of a yearly tenancy, six months;
4 (b)in the case of a tenancy where the period is less than a month, one month; and (c)in any other case, a period equal to the period of the tenancy. (3A)The appropriate date referred to in subsection (2)(c)(ii) above is— (a)in a case to which subsection (3B) below applies, the date that falls 53 weeks after the date on which the increased rent took effect; (b)in any other case, the date that falls 52 weeks after the date on which the increased rent took effect. (3B) This subsection applies where— (a)the rent under the tenancy has been increased by virtue of a notice under this section or a determination under section 14 below on at least one occasion after the coming into force of the Regulatory Reform (Assured Periodic Tenancies)(Rent Increases) Order 2003; and (b)the fifty-third week after the date on which the last such increase took effect begins more than six days before the anniversary of the date on which the first such increase took effect. (4) Where a notice is served under subsection (2) above, a new rent specified in the notice shall take effect as mentioned in the notice unless, before the beginning of the new period specified in the notice, (a)the tenant by an [NAME] in the prescribed form refers the notice to the appropriate tribunal; or (b)the landlord and the tenant agree on a variation of the rent which is different from that proposed in the notice or agree that the rent should not be varied. (5)Nothing in this section affects the right of the landlord and the tenant under an assured tenancy to vary by agreement any term of the tenancy (including a term relating to rent).
ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL
i. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written [NAME] for permission must be made
5 to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.
ii. 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].
iii. 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.
iv. 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.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Tenant’s Service Charge Challenge
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Confirms Penalties for Unlicensed HMO Management
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Loses Appeal Against £15,000 Penalty for Unlicensed Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Challenge to Parking Penalty Charges Imposed on…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Reasonable and Payable
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Denies Claimant's Cost Request in Tenancy Dispute
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Fails in Bid for Consultation Exemption
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Confirms Improvement Notice Against Property Owner
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Dismisses Right to Manage Application Due to Invalid Co…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Claimant's Request for Holding Deposit Return
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Loses Challenge to Service Charges in First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Breach Claims Against Tenants
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 Tribunal confirmed it lacked jurisdiction to determine the application.
- The landlord's notice was invalid because it stated the wrong existing rent.
- The proposed new rent was not payable because the increase notice was invalid.
- The landlord's notice was invalid because the proposed start date for the new rent was incorrect.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal decided it did not have the power to hear the case due to an invalid notice of rent increase.
Who was involved?
The case involved a tenant and a landlord.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided it lacked jurisdiction because the notice of rent increase was invalid, failing to specify the correct existing rent amount.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 13, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the notice of rent increase was invalid due to incorrect details about the existing rent.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure their notice of rent increase is accurate and complies with the relevant legislation.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered was the notice of rent increase and the documents submitted by both parties.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
Yes, it is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent increases.
