VadeLab
Struck OutFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Loses Rent Challenge Due to Late Filing and Defective Notice

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decided that it could not hear a tenant's challenge to a rent increase because the application was submitted too late and the notice proposing the increase was not properly formatted.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant's application to challenge a rent increase must be filed before the proposed increase takes effect.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent increases

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section of the Housing Act 1988 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 the beginning of a new period specified in the notice. The new period must begin at least two months after the notice is served. Additionally, if the rent has been previously increased under this section, the next increase must take effect on specific dates depending on the type of tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction due to timing issues and defective notice.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a tenant's challenge to a rent increase notice due to the application being submitted after the proposed increase date and the notice being defective.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Struck Out

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AL/MNR/2021/0016 P:PAPERREMOTE Property : 20 [RESPONDENT] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] : Decision in Relation to S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mrs [NAME] [NAME] and venue of Hearing : Remote hearing on the papers Date of Decision : 20 April 2021

DECISION

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this application for the reasons stated below.

This has been a hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all the issues could be determined on the papers. The documents that I was referred to are in an electronic file, the contents of which I have recorded.

Background:

1. The landlord served a notice of increase dated 21 September 2020, on the tenant which proposed a new rent of £400 per month instead of the existing rent of £375 per month.

2. The proposed new rent was specified to take effect from 25 October 2020. The tenant provided a copy of the previous Section 13 Notice which proposed an increase to the current rent of £375 per month with effect from 25 April 2020.

3. The tenant’s application referring the landlord’s notice to the Tribunal was dated 23 October 2020; it arrived at the Tribunal offices on 25 October 2020.

4. Directions were issued on 25 March 2021 stating that its preliminary

opinion was that it may not have jurisdiction because

a. The landlord’s notice proposing a new rent may be defective, as it

appears to be intended to take effect less than one year after a rent increase following a previous notice under section 13 of the Act took effect. In practical terms, this means that the proposed new rent may not be payable from the date specified.

b. The application was not received at this office before the date when the new rent specified in the notice of increase was to take effect. A Tribunal may therefore decide that the application is out of time and that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the rent. 5. Neither party provided any other documentation.

The Law:

4. The statutory provisions relating to the period when the tenant may refer the notice to the tribunal are contained in section 13(4) of the Act:

Increases of rent under assured periodic tenancies. (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 …….

(4) Where a notice is served under subsection (2) above, a new rent specified in the notice shall take effect as mentioned in the notice unless, before the beginning of the new period specified in the notice,— (a)the tenant by an application in the prescribed form refers the notice to a rent assessment committee; Facts Found

5. The Notice of Increase proposed that a new rent should commence less than a year after a rent increase following a previous notice under section 13 of the Act. 6. The tenant’s application was not received before the commencement date of the new rent.

The Tribunal’s decision

7. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the application. However, the Notice is of no effect as it does not comply with the provisions of section 13 which are set out below.

Reasons for the Decision

10 Section 13(4) requires the tenant’s application to be received by the Tribunal before the commencement date of the new rent.

Chairman: [NAME]

20 April 2021

Appendix of relevant legislation

Section 13 Housing Act 1988

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. (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 (3)The minimum period referred to in subsection (2) above is— (a)in the case of a yearly tenancy, six months; (b)in the case of a tenancy where the period is less than a month, one month; and (c)in any other case, a period equal to the period of the tenancy. (3A) The appropriate date referred to in subsection (2)(c)(ii) above is— (a)in a case to which subsection (3B) below applies, the date that falls 53 weeks after the date on which the increased rent took effect; (b)in any other case, the date that falls 52 weeks after the date on which the increased rent took effect. (3B) This subsection applies where— (a)the rent under the tenancy has been increased by virtue of a notice under this section or a determination under section 14 below on at least one occasion after the coming into force of the Regulatory Reform (Assured Periodic Tenancies)(Rent Increases) Order 2003; and

(b) the fifty-third week after the date on which the last such increase took effect begins more than six days before the anniversary of the date on which the first such increase took effect. (4) Where a notice is served under subsection (2) above, a new rent specified in the notice shall take effect as mentioned in the notice unless, before the beginning of the new period specified in the notice,— (a)the tenant by an application in the prescribed form refers the notice to the appropriate tribunal; or (b)the landlord and the tenant agree on a variation of the rent which is different from that proposed in the notice or agree that the rent should not be varied. (5) Nothing in this section (or in section 14 ) affects the right of the landlord and the tenant under an assured tenancy to vary by agreement any term of the tenancy (including a term relating to rent).

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

i. 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.

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

iv. 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.

📊 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

  • None of the provided cases show a successful outcome for tenants challenging rent increases.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • Applications to challenge a rent increase are struck out if made after the new rent has taken effect.
  • Applications for rent increase review are invalid if the notice does not comply with the prescribed form.
  • Applications to challenge a rent increase are outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction if the tenancy agreement includes a binding rent review mechanism.

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 the authority to hear the tenant's challenge to the rent increase.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that it lacked jurisdiction because the application was submitted after the proposed increase date and the notice was defective.

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 application was submitted after the proposed increase date.

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 should ensure their application is submitted before the proposed increase date and that the notice is properly formatted.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The notice of increase and the application to the Tribunal were the key documents.

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 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.