Tenant's Application for Market Rent Determination Rejected Due to Missing Notice
📌 In brief
A tenant's application for determining the market rent was rejected by the tribunal because they failed to submit the necessary notice for the year 2020. The tribunal ruled on December 8, 2021, stating that without the correct documentation, they could not make a decision.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant cannot obtain a determination of market rent without providing the required Notice of Increase.
📖 What the law says
This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to serve a notice proposing an increase in rent. The notice must be in a prescribed form and specify a new rent to take effect at the start of a new period of the tenancy, which must begin at least two months after the notice is served.
A tenant under an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy, provided that the rent is not pursuant to a previous determination under this section and that more than six months have not elapsed since the beginning of the tenancy.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the market rent due to missing documentation.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the market rent due to the tenant's failure to provide the required Notice of Increase for the year 2020. Decision rendered on 8th December 2021 by Mr Duncan Jagger, Valuer Chair.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/MNR/2020/0100 Property : 77 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : In Person Respondent : [redacted] : Did not attend Type of application : Jurisdiction to determine Market Rent under s13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal member(s) :
[NAME] [NAME] and venue of hearing : 3rd December 2021 at [ADDRESS] of decision : 8th December 2021
DECISION
Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a “face to face” hearing which has been consented to by the applicant. The documents that we were referred to are the 2021 Notice of Increase, the application and covering correspondence the contents of which the tribunal have noted. Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal determine that the application is invalid and that we do not have jurisdiction because the relevant Notice of Increase for the year 2020 has not been provided by the tenant. The application 1. The applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 following the service of a purported Notice of Increase by the landlord for the year 2020.
2. Background 3. On 15th June 2020, the tribunal received an application made by the tenant in connection with a proposed rent increase. The tribunal wrote to the tenant on 30th September 2020 requesting a copy of the landlord’s Notice of Increase together with a copy of the tenancy to be provided by the 14th October 2020. No response was received from the tenant and the tribunal sent another letter on the 11th August 2021. The tenant forwarded a copy of the tenancy agreement and a Notice of Increase for 2021 and not the 2020 Notice of increase. The tribunal can fully understand the confusion due to the time lapse. However, as the relevant Notice of Increase was not provided this tribunal do not have jurisdiction in the matter. Further, as discussed at the hearing should the tenant now consider an application for the 2021 Notice of Increase this would probably be time barred.
4. The tenant explained to the tribunal his current circumstances. Although he had received an amended Notice of Increase for 2021 delaying the date the increase would take effect from 31 July 2021 to 1 November 2021, that increase had taken effect from the earlier date. He was concerned that the landlord’s intention was to price him out of the tenancy.He was advised by the tribunal to consider seeking independent free advice from the Local Authority or Citizens Advice Bureau.
5. It is unfortunate that the landlord did not appear and made no representations to assist either the tribunal or the tenant to understand the situation.
Name: [NAME] Date: 8th December 2021
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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £877.50 Monthly Rent for Assured Tenancy in Bridgewater
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Held Responsible for Maintaining Structural Walls in Tenancy Dispu…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Extends £1,900/year Management Order for Property in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Not Liable for HMO Penalties: First-tier Tribunal Ruling
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Recognises Tenants' Association Under Landlord and Tena…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal grants dispensation for immediate works addressing structural defe…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £372/week Rent for Assured Tenancy in Central London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants £18,075.94 Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Successfully Obtains Right to Manage Property Despite Procedural I…
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 claimant complies with the necessary statutory requirements.
- The claimant raises issues that reflect the property's condition and market comparables.
- The claimant requests recognition under relevant statutory sections.
- The claimant challenges a defective notice of rent increase under the Housing Act 1988.
- The claimant seeks to extend a freeholder's management order with consent.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant fails to provide the required Notice of Increase for determining market rent.
- The claimant abuses the legal process by raising issues that could have been addressed in an earlier application.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal decided that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the market rent because the tenant did not provide the required Notice of Increase for the year 2020.
Who was involved?
The tenant applied for a determination of market rent, while the landlord did not attend the hearing.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it did not have jurisdiction because the tenant failed to provide the required Notice of Increase for the year 2020.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the tenant's failure to provide the required Notice of Increase for the year 2020.
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 they provide all necessary documentation to avoid having their application dismissed.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The Notice of Increase for the year 2020 was crucial, but the tenant only provided the Notice of Increase for 2021.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days of receiving the written reasons for the decision.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving complex legal issues.