VadeLab
Struck OutFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Strikes Out Late Market Rent Appeal

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) dismissed an appeal for determining a market rent because the application was submitted too late. The Housing Act 1988 requires applications to be made before the new rent takes effect.

⚖️ Legal holding

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) lacks jurisdiction to determine a market rent if the application is not made before the new rent takes effect.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under this section, a tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their assured tenancy. However, the application must be made within six months of the start of the tenancy or before the new rent takes effect, as determined by the statutory deadlines.

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

📖 Technical summary

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) struck out an application for determining a market rent as it was submitted out of time.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) struck out an application for determining a market rent as it was submitted out of time, failing to meet the statutory deadline set by the Housing Act 1988.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Struck Out

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/00MX/MNR/2024/0142 Property : 47 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicants (Tenant)

:

[APPELLANT] [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME] Respondents (Landlords)

:

[NAME] of application : Section 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Determination of market rent payable.

Tribunal member(s)

:

[NAME]([NAME])

Date of decision : 9 December 2024

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 1 September 2024 a Housing Adviser on behalf of the Applicant, the Tenant of 47 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (The Property), made an Application (the Application) 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 2. In response the Tribunal asked for a copy of the Notice and tenancy agreement, as these had not been supplied with the application. The Housing adviser forwarded a copy of these on 16 October 2024 and explained that the delay in sending the application form was caused by them having a high caseload and taking annual leave and that it was not the fault of the tenant.

3. The Notice is dated 26 July 2024 and proposed a new rent of £1150 per month, to take effect from 1 September 2024.

4. The Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Application and wrote to both parties on 18 October 2024 to indicate that Tribunal’s preliminary opinion was that it may not have jurisdiction to consider the matter because the application was not received at the tribunal office before the date when the new rent specified in the notice of increase was due to take effect.

5. The Tribunal considered that the preliminary jurisdiction issue could be decided on the basis of written representations and parties were invited to make such representations before 1 November 2024. Parties were informed that the Tribunal would concern itself solely with the question of whether it had jurisdiction to determine the application.

6. The Landlord emailed the Tribunal on 30 October 2024 expalining that they served the Notice on time and provided the guidance for the tenant that explained what they needed to do if they did not agree with the increase.

7. Nothing further was received from the tenant, or the housing adviser on behalf of the tenant.

The Hearing

8. This hearing has been determined on the papers provided, as no request for a hearing was received by either party

The Law

9. The Tribunal must determine that it has jurisdiction to hear the Application by reference to the validity of application, in order to go on to determine a rent under S14 of the Act.

10. The Act provides in section 13(4)(a) that a new rent specified in the s13 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 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 the rent should not be varied

11. In short, in this case the Tribunal must satisfy itself that the application was made in time .

3 12. Subject to the Tribunal having jurisdiction, Section 14 of the Act requires the Tribunal to determine the rent at which it considers the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing Landlord under an Assured Tenancy. In so doing the Tribunal is required by Section 14 (1) to ignore the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenants’ improvements as defined in Section 14 (2) of the Act.

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 Tribunal understands that it may have been the housing adviser that submitted the application out of time and that it was not the fault of the tenant.

15. However, whatever the position in this respect, an application to determine the market rent payable must be made to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and must be made before the beginning of the new period specified in the notice.

16. This application to the tribunal was made on 1 September 2024, which is the same day as the start date of the new rent and is out of time . The statutory timetable for making a valid rent determination application to tribunal cannot be varied by the tribunal.

17. The tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to determine the rent and the tribunal strike out the application.

[NAME]([NAME]) 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 application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

4 The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application 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 making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application 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 rejected

  • The application was not made before the new rent took effect.
  • The application did not comply with all statutory requirements.
  • There was a binding provision allowing rent increases.
  • The application was submitted even one day late.
  • The notice did not comply with the prescribed form under the Housing Act 1988.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) struck out an appeal for determining a market rent because the application was submitted too late.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in a dispute over the determination of a market rent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to strike out the appeal because the application was submitted after the new rent took effect, as required by the Housing Act 1988.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the application was submitted out of time, violating the statutory requirement.

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

The decision was against the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure their application is submitted before the new rent takes effect to avoid having their case struck out.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The date of the application and the date the new rent took effect were critical pieces of evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a point of law only.

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.

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.