First-tier Tribunal Rejects Invalid Rent Increase Notice
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal found that a notice of rent increase was invalid because it did not follow the correct format as required by the Housing Act 1988. As a result, the tribunal could not determine the new rent.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to challenge a notice of increase of rent if it is not in the prescribed form.
📖 What the law says
This section allows landlords to serve a notice proposing an increase in rent to tenants, provided the notice is in the prescribed form. The notice must specify a new rent to take effect at the start of a new period of the tenancy, which must begin at least two months after the notice is served.
A tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under an assured tenancy, including a new rent proposed in a notice under section 13(2). The tribunal will then determine the rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive in the open market.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the rent due to a defective notice.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal determined that a notice of increase of rent was not in accordance with the prescribed form under the Housing Act 1988, thus lacking jurisdiction to determine the rent.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AP/MNR/2019/0025 Property : [ADDRESS], Tottenham, London n17 8BA Applicant: [redacted] Respondent : [redacted] : Determination of Market Rent under S.13 and S.14 Housing Act 1988. Tribunal Members : Judge Daley Mr J Barlow FRICS
DECISION
Background:
1. By an application received on 11 March 2019, the tenant referred a Notice under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988. The Applicant became the tenant of the premises pursuant to an Assured Tenancy Agreement commencing on 24 October 2014.
2. The landlord purported to serve a Notice of Increase of Rent on the tenant by letter dated 18 February 2019. The Notice specified an increase in the market rent to £164.00 per week and gave a starting date of 1 April 2019 for the commencement of the new rent.
3. The tribunal wrote to the parties on 15 March 2019 to inform them that its preliminary view was that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the rent, because the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent appeared to be defective as it was not in the form prescribed by the Housing Act 1988.
4. The parties were asked to make any representations prior to 27 March 2019 following which the tribunal would consider whether it had jurisdiction to determine the market rent for the property.
2 5. No representations were received.
6. The tribunal has considered the papers and determines that the notice served is not in accordance with form 4B of ASSURED TENANCIES AND AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCIES (FORMS) REGULATIONS 1997. Accordingly the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the rent in this matter as a valid Notice of Increase was not served.
7. The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to change any of the matters contained within the notice. The notice does not accord with the provisions in the Housing Act 1988. Decision:
8. The tribunal accordingly has no jurisdiction to determine the rent and has closed its files.
Name: Judge Daley Date: 26 April 2019
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
Appendix one
Increases of rent under assured periodic tenancies. (1) This section applies to—
3 (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 [NAME], 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 [NAME], 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; (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. 12 06 April 2005
4 (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 application in the prescribed form refers the notice to a [NAME]; 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 (or in section 14 below) 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). [ S14 Determination of rent by [NAME]. (1) Where, under subsection (4)(a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to a [NAME] a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the committee shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the committee consider that the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy— (a) which is a periodic tenancy having the same periods as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; (b) which begins at the beginning of the new period specified in the notice; (c) the terms of which (other than relating to the amount of the rent) are the same as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; and (d) in respect of which the same notices, if any, have been given under any of Grounds 1 to 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act, as have been given (or have effect as if given) in relation to the tenancy to which the notice relates. (2) In making a determination under this section, there shall be disregarded- (a) any effect on the rent attributable to the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant; (b) any increase in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a relevant improvement carried out by a person who at the time it was carried out was the tenant, if the improvement- (i) was carried out otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to his immediate landlord, or (ii) was carried out pursuant to an obligation to his immediate landlord being an obligation which did not relate to the specific improvement concerned but arose by reference to consent given to the carrying out of that improvement; and (c) any reduction in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a failure by the tenant to comply with any terms of the tenancy.
5 (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, in relation to a notice which is referred by a tenant as mentioned in subsection (1) above, an improvement is a relevant improvement if either it was carried out during the tenancy to which the notice relates or the following conditions are satisfied, namely— (a) that it was carried out not more than twenty-one years before the date of service of the notice; and (b) that, at all times during the period beginning when the improvement was carried out and ending on the date of service of the notice, the dwelling- house has been let under an assured tenancy; and (c) that, on the coming to an end of an assured tenancy at any time during that period, the tenant (or, in the case of [NAME], at least one of them) did not quit. (3A) In making a determination under this section in any case where under Part I of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 the landlord or a [NAME] is liable to pay council tax in respect of a hereditament ("the relevant hereditament") of which the dwelling house forms part, the [NAME] shall have regard to the amount of council tax which, as at the date on which notice under section 13(2) above was served, was set by the billing authority— (a) for the financial year in which that notice was served, and (b) for the category of dwellings within which the hereditament fell on that date, but any discount or other reduction affecting the amount of council tax payable shall be disregarded. (3B) In subsection (3A) above— (a) "hereditament" means a dwelling within the meaning of Part I of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, (b) "billing authority" has the same meaning as in that Part of that Act, and (c) "category of dwellings" has the same meaning as in section 30(1) and (2) of that Act. (4) In this section "rent" does not include any service charge, within the meaning of section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but, subject to that, includes any sums payable by the tenant to the landlord on account of the use of furniture, in respect of council tax or for any of the matters referred to in subsection (1)(a) of that section, whether or not those sums are separate from the sums payable for the occupation of the dwelling-house concerned or are payable under separate agreements. (5) Where any rates in respect of the dwelling-house concerned are borne by the landlord or a [NAME], the [NAME] shall make their determination under this section as if the rates were not so borne.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Market Rent Claim Due to Tenancy Clause
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Application Due to Defective Notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rejects Service Charge Challenge Due to Uncontested Rent Increase
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Lacks Jurisdiction Over Rent Increase Application Due to Lack of V…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Landlord's Defective Notice Proposing New Rent
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal confirms validity of rent increase notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Increase Upheld for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Invalid Rent Increase Notice
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 challenges the notice of rent increase for not being in the prescribed form.
- The tenant requests a determination of a fair market rent adjusted for the property's deficiencies.
- The tenant applies for a new market rent determination under Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's application for a rent increase is based on a notice given in the prescribed form but was struck out.
- The landlord's notice proposing a new rent under a shorthand periodic tenancy did not specify a new period of the tenancy.
- The tenant's application for review of a defective notice of rent increase is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
- The landlord serves a valid notice under s.13 of the Housing Act 1988, leading to dismissal of the tenant's application.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal decided it lacked jurisdiction to determine the rent because the notice of increase was not in the correct form.
Who was involved?
The case involved a tenant and a landlord.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it did not have jurisdiction because the notice did not conform to the prescribed form under the Housing Act 1988.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14, and the ASSURED TENANCIES AND AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCIES (FORMS) REGULATIONS 1997 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the notice of increase did not comply with the prescribed form under the regulations.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant, as the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the rent.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that any notice of rent increase they receive complies with the prescribed form under the Housing Act 1988.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The prescribed form of the notice under the Housing Act 1988 was crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can often 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 cases involving legal disputes over rent increases.
