Tenant's Appeal Rejected Due to Binding Rent Review Mechanism
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided that it couldn't hear the tenant's appeal about a rent increase because the tenancy agreement had a clause allowing for rent increases without needing approval from the Tribunal.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's application to the Tribunal regarding a rent increase is barred if the tenancy agreement includes a binding rent review mechanism.
📖 What the law says
This section of the Housing Act 1988 applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, excluding those with a binding provision that allows for rent increases during specific periods of the tenancy.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction due to a binding rent review mechanism in the tenancy agreement.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the tenant's appeal regarding a rent increase due to a binding rent review mechanism in the tenancy agreement.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BB/MNR/2020/0067 LON/00BB/MNR/2021/0034 P:PAPERREMOTE
Property : 326B [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] Respondent : [redacted] : Decision in Relation to S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Member : [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 notices of increase on the tenant which proposed a new rent from 5 April 2020 and a second proposing a new rent from 5 April 2021.
2. The tenant’s applications referring the landlord’s notices to the Tribunal were dated 14 March 2020 and 11 March 2021 respectively.
4. The Tribunal wrote to the parties advising that it was its preliminary
opinion that the Tribunal may not have jurisdiction to consider these
two cases because “It appears that the tenancy agreement contains a
binding provision whereby the rent for a particular period will or
may be greater than the rent for a previous period (i.e. a rent review
mechanism). This provision is at clause 5 and states:
We may increase or decrease your rent after giving you at least 28
days’ notice in writing. The notice will tell you your new rent. Any
increase or decrease will normally date from the first Monday in April. We will set your new rent using our most recent rent setting policy. Please note that the Rent Assessment Committee does not have the power to set your rent.” 5. The parties were asked to reply by 7 April 2021. Neither party
responded to the letter from the Tribunal.
The Law:
3. The statutory provisions relating to when the tenant may refer the notice to the tribunal are contained in section 13 of the Act:
Facts Found
4. Clause 5 of the tenancy agreement which is binding on the tenant provides that the rent for a particular period of the tenancy will or may be greater than the rent for an earlier period.
The Tribunal’s decision
5. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the application.
Reasons for the Decision
10 The wording of Clause 5 of the tenancy agreement precludes an application to the Tribunal, section 13 (1) (b) of the Act applies.
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.
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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Freehold Purchase Compensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Granted Right to Buy Freehold Interest Under Leasehold Reform Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules RTM Company Must Pay Landlord's Costs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Damp Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Granted Permission to Purchase Freehold Interest Under Leasehold Ref…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Modern Flat at £915 Per Month
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Cannot Hear Challenge to Rent Increase Due to Binding Mechanism
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Invalid Rent Increase Notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal denies jurisdiction over rent increase notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Fails to Challenge Rent Increase Notice Due to Timing Issues
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
- Clause 5 of the tenancy agreement specifically prevented the tenant from making an application to the Tribunal.
- The tenancy agreement included a provision that allowed the rent to increase, which meant the Tribunal could not intervene.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal decided it didn't have the authority to hear the tenant's appeal about a rent increase.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided it lacked jurisdiction because the tenancy agreement included a clause allowing for rent increases without needing approval from the Tribunal.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1s.13 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenancy agreement included a binding rent review mechanism.
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 check their tenancy agreement for clauses that might prevent them from appealing rent increases to the Tribunal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The tenancy agreement and the notices of rent increase were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
Yes, it's always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
