Late Application Leads to Rejection in Rent Increase Case
📌 In brief
In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal dismissed an application regarding a rent increase because the application was submitted late. The tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case since the application was received after the proposed rent increase took effect.
⚖️ Legal holding
The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine an application if it is received after the proposed rent increase takes effect.
📖 What the law says
This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, excluding relevant low-cost tenancies. It allows landlords to serve notices proposing new rents that would take effect at the beginning of a new period specified in the notice, subject to minimum periods and conditions.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the case due to timing issues with the application.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) dismissed an application challenging a rent increase due to the application being submitted after the proposed rent increase took effect, as per Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BJ/MNR/2019/0052 Property : 47c [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant : [redacted] Representative : [COUNSEL] [NAME], Solicitors Respondent : [redacted] : None Type of application : Decision in relation to section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal member(s) : [NAME] [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 17 May 2019
DECISION
2
Decision: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this application for the reasons stated below. Background:
1. The tribunal received an application under section 13(4) of the Housing Act 1988 on 2 April 2019.
2. On 11 April 2019 the tribunal wrote to the parties to say that the tribunal’s preliminary opinion was that it may not have jurisdiction to determine the application because it had not been received in the tribunal’s office before the date the new rent specified in the notice of increase was due to take effect. The letter went on to say that it considered the preliminary jurisdiction issue was suitable for determination on the basis of written representations which it invited the parties to make. It also offered an oral hearing should either party request one but neither did. Written representations have been received from [APPELLANT] [NAME], Solicitors, on behalf of the tenant but nothing from the landlord. The [NAME]:
3. Where a party wishes to refer a notice proposing a new rent given by the landlord on form 4 under the provisions of S13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 the reference must be received by the tribunal before the date on which the rent increase takes effect as provided for by S13(4) of the Act. Facts found:
4. A form 4 notice of increase dated 28 February 2019 was served on the tenant proposing a rent increase from 1st April 2019. The notice referring the matter to the tribunal is dated 1st April 2019 but was not received by the tribunal until 2 April 2019. The tenant representative, [NAME], Solicitors, sent a letter to the tribunal on 17 April 2019 in response to the invitation to make written submissions. In the letter it is alleged that the delay in referring the notice of rent increase to the tribunal was due to the landlord deliberately misleading and confusing the tenant and copies of e-mail correspondence between the tenant, A- Z [NAME] and [COMPANY] were enclosed in support of that claim. If the tribunal had no jurisdiction, they said it would be “a miscarriage of the appeal process and unfair justice”.
Reasons for the decision:
3 5. In order to be valid an application must be received by the tribunal before the rent increase is due to take effect. [NAME]’s letter accompanying the application form referring the rent increase to the tribunal and also dated 1st April 2019 apologised for the application being sent on the day the increase was due to take effect. This was not received by the tribunal until the following day. The notice was received after the date on which the rent increase was to take effect and is therefore out of time. The tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction. The tribunal has no discretion to vary the time limit.
Name: [NAME]: 22 May 2019
4 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 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Extends Property Manager's Term for Three Years
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freehold Purchase Approved: Premium Set at £12,200
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Tenancy Adjusted by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drainage Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Entitled to Recover Reasonable Costs Under Lease Provisions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Local Authority Secures Annual Site License Fee Order Against Non-compliant…
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 tribunal allows claims where there is an urgent need for repairs or works.
- Claims are allowed when tenants challenge the reasonableness and payability of service charges under their lease.
- Tenants can recover reasonable costs if successful in their claims.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Applications are struck out if submitted after the proposed rent increase has taken effect.
- Appeals are dismissed if the tenancy agreement provides a specific mechanism for rent increases.
- Cases are struck out if the appellant fails to comply with the prescribed time limits for submitting an appeal.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal decided it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the application was submitted after the proposed rent increase took effect.
Who was involved?
The case involved a tenant and a landlord, specifically a housing association.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it lacked jurisdiction because the application was submitted after the proposed rent increase took effect, as required by Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the application was submitted after the proposed rent increase took effect.
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 proposed rent increase takes effect.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The dates of the notice of rent increase and the submission of the application were crucial.
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 like this.
