Notice of Rent Increase Invalid Due to Incorrect Timing
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a notice of rent increase was invalid because it did not specify the correct start date for the increase, as required by the Housing Act 1988. This means the rent increase did not take effect and the tenant continues to pay the previous rent amount.
⚖️ Legal holding
A notice of rent increase under s.13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 must specify the correct start date for the increase.
📖 What the law says
This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies. Under this section, a landlord can serve a notice on the tenant proposing a new rent increase. The notice must specify a new period of the tenancy when the new rent will begin. This period must start at least two months after the date the notice is served. In some cases, the period can also be specified based on anniversaries related to the tenancy.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The notice of rent increase was invalid due to timing issues under the Housing Act 1988.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal determined that a notice of rent increase served by a landlord was invalid because it did not specify the correct start date for the increase, as required by s.13(2) of the Housing Act 1988.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY Case Reference : LON/00AJ/MNR/2019/0095 Property : 36 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Landlord : [COMPANY] : N/A Tenant : Miss [COUNSEL] : In person Type of Application : Determination as to validity of Notice of Increase under section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Judge W Hansen (chairman) [NAME] and venue of Meeting : 19 September 2019 at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 19 September 2019
DECISION
2
Determination
The Tribunal determines that the Notice of Increase dated 17 June 2019 served by the landlord under s.13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 is invalid and of no effect and that the increase in the rent proposed in that notice has therefore not taken effect and rent continues to be payable at the existing rate of £1310 per month.
Background
1. The tenant is an assured shorthold tenant. Her original tenancy was for a term certain of 12 months commencing on 3 October 2014 and expiring on 2 October 2015. She has remained in possession thereafter on the same terms and conditions as a periodic assured shorthold tenant. The rent is payable monthly on 3rd day of each month.
2. On 17 June 2019 the landlord served a notice of increase under s.13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 (“the Notice”) proposing an increase in the rent from £1310 per month to £1395 per month to take effect from 20 July 2019.
3. On 16 July 2019 the tenant referred the Notice to the Tribunal.
4. On or about 8 August 2019 the Tribunal wrote to both parties indicating that the Notice might be defective “as it does not appear to take effect at the commencement of a new period of the tenancy”.
5. The parties were invited to request an oral hearing and/or submit written representations addressing this point. In fact, no representations have been received from either party.
3
6. The Tribunal has therefore conducted a paper determination on the basis of the material it has.
7. Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 provides as follows:
(2) For the purpose 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, being a period beginning not earlier than— (a) the minimum period after the date of the service of the notice; and (b) except in the case of a statutory periodic tenancy—
(i) in the case of an assured agricultural occupancy, the first anniversary of the date on which the first period of the tenancy began; (ii) in any other case, on the date that falls 52 weeks after the date on which the first period of the tenancy began; and (c) if the rent under the tenancy has previously been increased by virtue of a notice under this subsection or a determination under section 14 below—
(i) in the case of an assured agricultural occupancy, the first anniversary of the date on which the increased rent took effect; (ii) in any other case, the appropriate date.
8. The relevant words are italicised above. The Notice proposes that the new rent should take effect from 20 July 2019 whereas it should have specified 3 August 2019, given the terms of the tenancy and the requirements of sub- section (2) above. The Notice fails to comply with the statute and is therefore invalid and of no effect.
9. That is the determination of the tribunal. It follows that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the rent. It also follows that the rent payable by the tenant continues to be payable at the existing rate.
Name: Judge W Hansen Date: 19 September 2019
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Market Rent Adjusted for Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Notice of Rent Increase Invalid Due to Incorrect Service Timing
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Lease Extension Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Lease Renewal Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Lease Extension Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Reduced Rent Due to Poor Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Challenge Against Invalid Rent Increase Notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Notice of Rent Increase Found Invalid Due to Incorrect Timing
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Premium Under Leasehold Reform Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Invalid Rent Increase Notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Lease Extension Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Granted New Lease Based on Existing Terms
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 of rent increase was invalid because it did not specify the correct start date for the new rent.
- The new rent should have started on August 3, 2019, to align with the tenancy period.
- The rent continues to be £1310 per month because the increase did not take effect.
- The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the rent because the notice itself was invalid.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided that the notice of rent increase was invalid because it did not specify the correct start date for the increase.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the notice was invalid because it did not comply with the requirements of the Housing Act 1988 regarding the start date of the rent increase.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 13(2), was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the notice did not specify the correct start date for the increase, as required by the Housing Act 1988.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that any notice of rent increase specifies the correct start date according to the Housing Act 1988.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The notice of rent increase and the terms of the tenancy agreement were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
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.
