VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Upholds Validity of Rent Increase Notice

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal reviewed a notice of rent increase given by the landlord to the tenant. They determined the notice was valid according to the prescribed form under the Housing Act 1988.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may serve a notice of rent increase on a tenant in a form substantially to the same effect as the prescribed form.

Topics

rent increaseprescribed formvalidity of notice

Provisions

Housing Act 1988 s.13Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section allows landlords to serve a notice proposing a new rent increase on tenants under certain conditions. The notice must be in the prescribed form and specify a new period for the tenancy starting at least two months after the notice is served.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal found the landlord's notice of rent increase to be valid under the prescribed form.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tribunal reviewed a notice of rent increase served by the landlord on the tenant. The notice was deemed valid under the prescribed form as per the Housing Act 1988.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Notice of the Tribunal Decision and Register of Rents under Assured Periodic Tenancies (Section 14 Determination)

Housing Act 1988 Section 14

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were 13 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Ms [NAME]-[COMPANY] C/o [RESPONDENT], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mrs [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1,400.0 0 Per Calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 November 2019

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable n/a Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced April 1990

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs S.11, tenant liable for internal redecoration and minor repairs.

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises A second floor, flat comprising, three bedrooms, one living room, kitchen, bathroom W.C. with central heating, but without double glazing.

Chairman Judge Hamilton- Farey Date of Decision 27 November 2020

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AY/MNR/2019/0140

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : FL/LON/OOAY/MNR/2019/0140 Property : 13 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : N/a Respondent : [redacted] : [COMPANY] of application : Decision in relation to s.13(4) of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 19th December 2019

DECISION

Decision The tribunal does have jurisdiction to determine this application for the reasons stated below. Background 1 On 29 October 2019 the tribunal received an application from the Tenant for determination of the rent for 13 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] ('the Premises') under s.13(4) of the Housing Act 1988 ('the Act').

2 The Landlord had served a s.13(2) Notice on the Tenant dated 27th August 2019 to increase the rent from £1000 per month to £1400 per month, effective from 1st November 2019. 3 The Landlord served a Form 4b on the tenant to notify them of the proposed rent increase. This form was reviewed by both the case officer and a procedural judge who subsequently considered it necessary for a tribunal to determine the validity of the Notice. A letter was sent to the parties dated 20th November 2019 which advised that the Notice may be defective, and the validity of the notice would be considered as a preliminary jurisdiction issue. 4 This letter asked the parties to submit any written representation on this matter prior to the 9th December. No written representation was received from the tenant. The landlord’s representative explained in their representation dated 22nd November that the Form 4b used to issue the Notice of increase on the tenant was used by them for many years and in the prescribed form. 5 It is their contention that the tribunal has jurisdiction in this matter because the Notice served on the tenant is valid. The Law 6 Section 13(1) of the 1998 Housing Act states: “This section applies to: a) A statutory periodic tenancy… b) Any other periodic tenancy which is an assured tenancy… For the purposes 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…” Reasons for the Decision 7 Section 13(1) of the Housing Act 1988 requires a landlord to serve the notice to increase rent on the tenant “in the prescribed form”.

8. The prescribed forms are set out in a Schedule to the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015 (the “Forms Regulations”); a) The prescribed form for use by the landlord as Notice of the proposed rent increase is Form No.4; b) Regulation 2 of the Forms Regulations specifically states that “any reference to a numbered form is a reference to the form bearing that number in the Schedule to these Regulations, or to a form substantially to the same effect.” (Emphasis added).

9. The tribunal has reviewed the Notice served on the tenant. The Landlord used a form referred to as “Form No 4b”. The presentation of the information on this form is not wholly consistent with alternative prescribed forms but the correct numbered form was used.

10. Perusal of the content of the Notice confirmed it satisfied the requirements of the condition a “form substantially to the same effect.” It contained all relevant information about the proposed rent increase required by the tenant.

11.

In all the circumstances it would appear a valid Notice of rent increase was served on the tenant in accordance with section 13(1) of the Act. The tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application made to review the rent increase under section 13(4) Act.

11. The tribunal will issue to the parties’ directions on submission of evidence, inspection and whether the application is to be decided by written representation or hearing no later than 10th January 2020.

Name: [NAME]: 19th December 2019

Valuer Chairman

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), 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 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 accepted

  • The landlord's notice was valid because it contained all the necessary information about the proposed rent increase.
  • The landlord used a form that was substantially to the same effect as the prescribed form, even if its presentation was not wholly consistent.
  • The tribunal has the authority to decide on the application to review the rent increase.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant did not submit any written arguments regarding the validity of the rent increase notice.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal decided that the landlord's notice of rent increase was valid under the prescribed form.

Who was involved?

The case involved a landlord and a tenant.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the notice was valid because it was in a form substantially to the same effect as the prescribed form.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 and the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was whether the notice was in a form substantially to the same effect as the prescribed form.

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

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure their notice of rent increase is in a form substantially to the same effect as the prescribed form.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents that mattered were the notice of rent increase and the prescribed form.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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 rent increases.

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.