First-tier Tribunal Strikes Out Tenant’s Market Rent Appeal Due to Binding Clause

OUTCOME: Struck Out

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/12UC/MNR/2026/0018

Property : 62 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicants (Tenant)

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

:

[NAME](Hons)

Date of Decision : 12 March 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 29 August 2025 the Applicant, the Tenant of 62 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (The Property), made an Application (the Application) to the Tribunal refering a notice of increase in rent (the Notice) by the Landlord of the Property under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.

2. The application form was accompanied by the tenancy agreement which next to the heading ‘TERM’ on the first page it states ‘…after this date the contract

2 will continue as a Contractual Periodic Tenancy, on a monthly rolling basis, on the same terms and conditions…’.

3. The Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Application 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 appears that the tenancy agreement contains a binding provision whereby the rent for a particular period will or may be greater than the rent for a previous period (i.e. a rent review mechanism). This provision is paragraph 5 of the tenancy agreement.

4. 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 19 February 2026. Parties were informed that the Tribunal would concern itself solely with the question of whether it had jurisdiction to determine the application.

5. On 16th February 2026, the tenant made an application to extend the deadline for responses for an additional 14 days and this was granted by the Legal Officer who extended the deadline to 3rd March 2026.

6. On 3rd March 2026 the Tribunal received an email from the tenant attaching their response in a letter. The tenant requested that the case be reconsidered as the market rent is far above the market rate in the area, there have been consistent issues regarding their quiet enjoyment of the property and there have been ongoing issues with bills relating to the property.

7. The Tribunal did not receive any representations from the landlord.

The Law

8. The Tribunal must first 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.

9. The Tribunal gains its jurisdiction to deal with rent increases of assured periodic tenancies (eg week to week or month to month) from section 13(1) of the Housing Act 1988.

Section 13 (1) 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

3

Issues

10. 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

11. Paragraph 5 of the tenancy agreement states ‘No increase in Rent may take effect within twelve months of the date of this Agreement but the rent may be increased or decreased thereafter by the Landlord giving one month's written notice to the Tenant’.

12. The Tribunal is of the opinion that, having reviewed the tenancy agreement this is not a statutory periodic tenancy and that , as set out at para 9b above, the rent review clause comes within Section 13 (1) (b) .

13. The Tribunal that does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the application is therefore struck out.

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

4 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).