VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Loses Challenge to Rent Increase in First-tier Tribunal

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant tried to challenge a rent increase but lost because their tenancy was classified as a secure tenancy, not an assured periodic tenancy, which falls outside the scope of the relevant law.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is not entitled to challenge a rent increase under S.13 Housing Act 1988 if their tenancy is a secure tenancy rather than an assured periodic tenancy.

Topics

rent increasessecure tenancyassured periodic tenancy

Provisions

📖 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, which must take effect at least two months after the notice is served.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal found that the tenancy was a secure tenancy and not an assured periodic tenancy, thus lacking jurisdiction under S.13 Housing Act 1988.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed a tenant's challenge to a rent increase, finding that the tenancy was a secure tenancy and not subject to S.13 of the Housing Act 1988.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BB/MNR/2023/00195 Property : 26 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted]

[NAME] (Tenant)

Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] (Landlord) Representative : None Type of Application : Section 13(4) Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members :

Mr. [NAME] and venue of Hearing : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 26 June 2023

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application by email 31 March 2023 without the normal application form. The tenant/ applicant writes; “I am writing to submit my application in reference to the notice proposing a new rent under an Assured Periodic Tenancy or Agricultural Occupancy, to the Tribunal. Please find enclosed the duly completed form along with a copy of my tenancy agreement and notice to increase rent.”

2 The tenant enclosed a copy of his tenancy. The landlord is a local housing authority, London Borough Newham. Councils grant ‘Secure Tenancies’: They do not, cannot, issue an Assured Periodic Tenancy however.

3 Housing Act 1988 Section 13: Increases of rent under assured periodic tenancies. (1) This section applies to— (a) a statutory periodic tenancy other than one which, by virtue of paragraph 11 or paragraph 12 in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act, cannot for the time being be an assured tenancy; and (b) any other periodic tenancy which is an assured tenancy, other than one in relation to which there is a provision, for the time being binding on the tenant, under which the rent for a particular period of the tenancy will or may be greater than the rent for an earlier period. 4 Unsurprisingly the notice of Rent Increase from the landlord does not comply with the requirements of S.13. It is not a valid notice under S.13, nor does it need to be, because the tenancy is not an assured periodic tenancy. It even refers to its being a ”secure tenancy”.

Decision

5 Notice under S.13 must be given by the landlord in accord with S.13 Housing Act 1988 as amended by the Regulatory Reform (Assured Periodic Tenancies) (Rent Increases) Order 2003; in the format of ‘FORM 4’. However this only applies if the tenancy is one covered by the legislation. The tenancy appears to be a local housing authority which granted a “secure tenancy” and this is not covered by S.13.

6 Whilst there is no new rent for the tenant to appeal to this Tribunal about, the tenant should contact the landlord directly about the new rent that the landlord appears to have given notice of, under the Secure Tenancy referenced in that document produced by the tenant.

7 The Tribunal determines that it has no jurisdiction.

Name: N. [NAME]: 26 June 2023

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 tenant is entitled to challenge a notice of rent increase if it contains incorrect figures.
  • A tenant is entitled to a new lease under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
  • A tenant is entitled to recover reasonable costs under the lease provisions if successful in a claim.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • A tenant is not entitled to challenge a rent increase under S.13 Housing Act 1988 if their tenancy is a secure tenancy rather than an assured periodic tenancy.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided that the tenant could not challenge the rent increase under the Housing Act 1988 because the tenancy was a secure tenancy.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the local housing authority were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the tenant had no grounds to challenge the rent increase because the tenancy was a secure tenancy, not an assured periodic tenancy.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 13, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the tenancy was a secure tenancy, not an assured periodic tenancy.

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

The decision was against the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation would need to check the type of tenancy they have before challenging a rent increase.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The tenancy agreement and the notice of rent increase were important documents.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

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

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent increases and tenancy types.

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.