DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·01 February 2023

Landlord's Rent Increase Application Dismissed Due to Tenancy End

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application for a rent increase because the tenant had vacated the property and the tenancy had ended. The rent stayed at £550 per week until the tenancy ended.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to maintain their current rent level until the tenancy ends if the landlord withdraws the rent increase application.

Topics

rent increasetenancy termination

Provisions

Housing Act 1988 s.13 Housing Act 1988 s.14(8)

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to serve a notice proposing a new rent increase. However, the new rent can only take effect during a specified future period, which must begin at least two months after the notice is served. If the rent has already been increased before, the next increase can only occur after a longer waiting period, typically one year.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

A tenant under an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy, provided that the rent is not pursuant to a previous determination under this section and more than six months have not elapsed since the beginning of the tenancy. Additionally, a tenant can challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under section 13(2) or 13A(2).

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal dismissed the application for a rent increase due to the tenancy ending.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application for a rent increase from £550 to £800 per week, as the tenancy had come to an end. The rent remained at £550 per week until the tenancy ended. Judge J O White presided over the case.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : MAN/30UE/MNR/2022/0032 Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] :

Respondent : [redacted] :

Type of application : Decision in relation to section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal member(s) : Judge [NAME] : (p): Paper determination Property Chamber, Northern Residential Property first-tier Tribunal, 1st floor, Piccadilly Exchange, 2 Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester, [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 6 July 2022

DECISION

Decision: The proposed rent increase has been withdrawn. The rent remains at £550 per week until such time as the tenancy ended. Reasons:

1. The tribunal received an application under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (“the Act”). It was accompanied by a Notice dated 9 December 2021 proposing a rent increase from £550 to £800 per week from 19 January 2022. The applicant has had an assured tenancy of (“the Property”) since 19 December 2014.

2. The parties were informed that the tribunal would carry out an inspection and make a paper determination on 7 July 2022. The landlord informed the tribunal service that the tenant had vacated the property and the tenancy had come to an end. It was no longer necessary to continue with the application. The tribunal service emailed the tenant and received no reply.

3. In accordance with s14 (8) of the Act, as the tenancy has come to an end and the landlord is not pursuing the increase in rent, the tribunal is no longer required to continue with a determination of a market rent.

4. As a consequence, the rent remains £550 for the remaining period of the tenancy. 5. As this decision has been made without a hearing, or other opportunity to make representations, it remains an interim decision for 14 days. If no representations are made within that time the decision will become final.

Name: Judge White Date: 6 July 2022

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.

3 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:

Allowed11 cases

Other1 case

First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant and Landlord Reach Settlement Through Consent Order

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 challenged the rent increase notice for violating statutory time requirements.
The tenant requested a rent determination based on the property's condition and market comparables.
The tenant received a valid notice for rent increase under the prescribed form.

❌ Tends to be rejected

The landlord withdrew the rent increase application before the tribunal could make a decision.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal dismissed the landlord's application for a rent increase because the tenancy had ended.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the rent increase application was no longer necessary because the tenancy had ended.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14(8) were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The fact that the tenancy had ended was the most important argument.

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

The decision was against the landlord who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should check if their tenancy has ended before applying for a rent increase.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The fact that the tenant had vacated the property and the tenancy had ended was the key evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.

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.