VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant's Application Rejected for Missing Rent Increase Notice

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal rejected a tenant's application because they didn't provide the necessary notice of rent increase as required by law. This highlights the importance of following legal procedures when dealing with rental issues.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant cannot bring an application without providing the required notice of rent increase.

Topics

tenancy disputesjurisdiction requirements

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 a new rent increase, which must take effect at least two months after the notice is served. The notice must be in a prescribed form and specify the new period of the tenancy.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

This section allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. However, no application can be made if the rent is pursuant to a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have elapsed since the beginning of the tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction due to missing documentation.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) dismissed an application for lack of jurisdiction due to the tenant failing to submit the required notice of rent increase under the Housing Act 1988.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AH/MNR/2021/0002 Property :

30 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted] : - Respondent : [redacted] : - Type of application : Decision in relation to section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal member(s) : Judge D [NAME] (remotely) : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 13 October 2021

DECISION

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

1. On 28/09/2020 the tribunal received an application under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988. A letter dated 09/08/2020 was included with the application however the notice of increase of rent referred to in the application was not attached. The application was signed by the applicant on 25/09/2020.

2. In the letter addressed to the Tribunal dated 9/8/2020 the Applicant wrote “I am writing to you to refer the notice of the Rent increase proposed for 01th September 2020 to £1080.00”. No further detail was provided in relation to the term of rent, the previously charged rent and no detail was provided in relation to the notice of increase of rent.

3. That letter asks the Tribunal to take into account improvements in the property since the start of the family’s occupation in October 1966. These improvements are stated to be double glazing, a shower room central heating and more recently outhouse roof repairs.

4. On 17/03/2021 the Tribunal wrote to the Applicant tenant explaining that without a Notice of Increase of rent, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine his application. The letter asked that the notice be provided. No response was received by the Tribunal.

5. The law: “S.13 Housing Act 1988 - increases of rent under assured periodic tenancy s. 13(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 … S. 14 Housing Act 1988 – Determination of rent by tribunal: (1) Where under subsection (4)(a) of Section 13, a tenant refers to the tribunal a notice under subsection 13(2), the tribunal shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the tribunal consider that, the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under the assured tenancy ….”

Reason for the decision 6. The tenant applicant has failed to provide a copy of the notice of increase of rent, as is required by s.13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to determine a rent.

Name: Judge D Brandler Date: 13 October 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:

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 failed to provide a copy of the rent increase notice, which is legally required.
  • The tribunal informed the tenant that jurisdiction was lacking without the notice, but received no response.
  • The application did not include the notice of increase of rent that was referred to.
  • The tenant's letter to the Tribunal did not provide sufficient detail about the rent increase.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the tenant's application to review a rent increase due to the lack of the required notice of increase of rent.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about the validity of the tenant's application to review a rent increase under the Housing Act 1988.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to dismiss the application because the tenant failed to provide the required notice of increase of rent as mandated by the Housing Act 1988.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically sections 13 and 14, were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the requirement for the tenant to provide the notice of increase of rent under section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988.

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

The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

For someone in a similar situation, it means they must ensure they provide all necessary notices as required by the relevant legislation when applying to review a rent increase.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence that mattered was the absence of the notice of increase of rent provided by the tenant.

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.