VadeLab
Struck OutFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Rent Increase Notice Invalidated Due to Lack of Proper Documentation

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal dismissed an application because the rent increase notice was found to be invalid. The notice was missing important documentation such as signatures and guidance notes.

⚖️ Legal holding

A rent increase notice must comply with statutory requirements including proper signing and attachment of guidance notes.

Topics

rent increase noticesvalidity of noticestenancy agreements

Provisions

section 13(4) Housing Act 1988rule 9(2)(a) Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, excluding relevant low-cost tenancies. It allows landlords to serve a notice proposing an increase in rent, provided the notice is in the prescribed form and specifies a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal struck out the application due to an invalid rent increase notice.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal struck out an application regarding a rent increase notice due to its invalidity, as it lacked proper signing and did not attach required guidance notes.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Struck Out

Case Reference : BIR/00CQ/MNR/2019/0040

Property : 11 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenants : [NAME] [RESPONDENT] Landlord : Mrs [RESPONDENT] (as stated on the Rent Increase Notice) Type of Application : An application under section 13(4) of the Housing Act 1988 referring a notice proposing a new rent under an Assured Periodic Tenancy, to the Tribunal. Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] of Hearing : 25 October 2019 Date of Decision : 18 November 2019

________________________________________________________ DECISION ON STRIKE OUT ___________________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

FIRST – TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

BACKGROUND

1. By an application received on 6 September 2019, [NAME] and [NAME] (the “Tenants”) of the Property, referred the Notice of increase of rent served by the Landlord (named in the Notice as Mrs [RESPONDENT]) proposing a new rental of £895.00 per month from 6 September 2019, in place of the existing rent of £720.00 per month, to the Tribunal.

2. Following a review of the application by a Procedural Judge, it appeared that the Landlord's Notice proposing a new rent was invalid as the Guidance Notes were not appended to the Notice and further it was not signed or dated. Following a request from the Tribunal, Mrs [NAME] provided a poor copy of the Notice which appeared to include some of the Guidance Notes but not all 18 paragraphs and which was signed and dated. The Tribunal had also requested a copy of the tenancy agreement in order that full details of the ownership of the Property could be ascertained as with the Tenant’s referral to the Tribunal was a letter from Mr [APPELLANT], who also claimed to be an owner, objecting to the proposed rent increase. No copy was provided.

3. The Tribunal carried out an inspection of the Property on 25 October 2019 in the presence of Mrs [NAME]. It is not necessary for the purposes of this decision to provide information relating to the Property’s accommodation and physical condition.

4. Following a request by Mr [NAME], a hearing was held at Coventry Magistrates Court following the inspection. Only Mr [NAME] was in attendance.

5. At the hearing, Mr [NAME] stated that he was unable to provide any documentary evidence that he was a joint owner of the Property. He did however produce the Rent Increase Notice purportedly received by the Tenants which had no Guidance Notes appended and which was not signed or dated. As background, the Tribunal was advised that Mr and Mrs [NAME] are currently undergoing a divorce.

6. Following the hearing the Tribunal wrote to the parties stating that it considered it likely that it may not have jurisdiction under rule 9 (2) (a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and accordingly may strike the application out as the Rent Increase Notice appears invalid for the following reasons:

a) The full guidance notes were not attached to the Rent Increase Notice. b) The Landlord’s name on the Notice is given as [RESPONDENT] when the property is in joint names.

c) The Rent Increase Notice presented to the Tribunal at the hearing was not signed.

7. The Landlords were asked to produce an up to date Land Registry certificate confirming ownership of the Property and were also invited to make submissions on the Tribunal’s proposals to strike the application out, both within 14 days.

8. No submissions were received.

DECISION

9. On the balance of probabilities, for the following reasons, the Tribunal considers that the Rent Increase Notice is invalid:

The Rent Increase Notice was not signed or dated. The full Guidance Notes were not attached.

10. The application is therefore struck out; in practical terms the Landlord’s Notice to increase the rent is invalid.

APPEAL

11. A party seeking permission to appeal this decision must make a written application to the Tribunal for permission to appeal. This application must be received by the Tribunal no later than 28 days after this decision is sent to the parties. Further information is contained within Part 6 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (S.I. 2013 No. 1169).

[NAME]

📊 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 tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their property, taking into account the condition and location.
  • A tenant can challenge a rent increase notice if it violates statutory time requirements.
  • Tenants are entitled to a rent determination that reflects current market conditions and property state.
  • A tenant is entitled to a fair rent assessment considering the property’s condition and market trends.
  • A tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment reflecting the property's condition and amenities compared to modern standards.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • A tenant's claim was struck out when the landlord's notice of rent increase did not comply with statutory requirements.
  • The claim was dismissed when the notice lacked proper signing and attachment of guidance notes.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal struck out the tenant's application due to an invalid rent increase notice.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about whether a rent increase notice was valid under the Housing Act 1988.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to strike out the application because the rent increase notice was unsigned and lacked full guidance notes.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 13(4) of the Housing Act 1988 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the rent increase notice was invalid due to lack of proper documentation.

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 rent increase notice includes all required documentation and is properly signed.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The rent increase notice and the lack of proper documentation were the key evidence in this case.

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.