VadeLab
Struck OutFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Rejects Late Tenant Rent Application

Case No.

📌 In brief

The tenant tried to get the First-tier Tribunal to decide on their rent but the application was made too late. Under the Housing Act 1988, tenants have only six months from the start of their tenancy to make such an application. The tribunal ruled they couldn't consider the request because it was submitted out of time.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant cannot apply to the tribunal for a determination of rent more than six months after the tenancy began.

Topics

tenancy applicationsjurisdictiontime limits

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.22

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 22, a tenant under an assured shorthold tenancy can apply to the appropriate tribunal for a determination of rent. However, the application must be made within six months of the tenancy beginning. If more than six months have passed, the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the rent.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal found the tenant's application was made outside the permitted six-month period, thus lacking jurisdiction.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tenant sought the tribunal's determination of rent under an Assured Shorthold Tenancy but the application was made outside the six-month period from the start of the tenancy. The tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to determine the matter under section 22(2) of the Housing Act 1988.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Struck Out

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : LON/00BK/MDR/2019/0007 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] :

N/A

Respondent : [redacted] : N/A Types of Application : Market rent - jurisdiction Tribunal Members : Judge Tagliavini Mr. D Jagger MRICS

Date and venue of (paper) hearing

: 17 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of Decision

: 17 January 2020

DECISION _____________________________________________________________________

2

Decisions of the tribunal

I. The tenant’s application to the tribunal is outside of the permitted six months period provided by section 22(2) of the Housing Act 1988. Therefore, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this application.

1. By an application dated 15 November 2019 the applicant tenant sough the tribunal’s determination of rent under an Assured Shorthold Tenancy.

2. The application stated that the tenancy had commenced on 8 May 2019 at a rent of £888.33 per four weeks. No further representations were received from the tenant and a copy of the tenancy agreement was not provided to the tribunal.

3. In a letter (undated) from the [NAME] it was stated that the Applicant had left the property on September 2019 and asserted that the application should be “struck out” as it had been made out of time.

4. As neither party requested an oral hearing and the respondent agreed to a paper determination, the tribunal decided the matter on the documents before it.

5. The tribunal finds that the tenant’s application was made outside of the six month period from the start of the tenancy and therefore does not have jurisdiction to determine this matter; section 22(2)Housing Act 1988.

Signed: Judge Tagliavini

Dated: 17 January 2020

3

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Struck Out9 cases
Dismissed2 cases
Allowed1 case

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

  • None of the provided cases show a winning pattern for the claimant.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The application was made more than six months after the tenancy began.
  • The application did not comply with the prescribed form.
  • The application was made without a valid notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988.
  • The application was made outside the six-month window following the commencement of an assured shorthold tenancy.
  • The application was made regarding airspace not classified as a dwelling under the Act.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal decided it didn't have the authority to hear the tenant's application because it was made too late.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided the application was invalid because it was made outside the six-month window allowed by law.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 22(2) of the Housing Act 1988 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the application was made outside the six-month period allowed by law.

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

The decision was against the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure their application is made within the six-month period from the start of their tenancy.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The date of the tenancy start and the date of the application were 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 like this.

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.