Tenant's Application Struck Out Due to Invalid Notice of Rent Increase
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal struck out a tenant's application for determining a new rent because the landlord's notice of rent increase was invalid. The notice was invalid as it specified a date for the proposed new rent within the first 52 weeks of the tenancy, contrary to the Housing Act 1988.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's application for determination of a new rent is struck out if the landlord's notice is invalid.
📖 What the law says
This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies. It allows landlords to serve a notice proposing a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy, provided that the period begins at least two months after the date of the notice. For non-statutory periodic tenancies, the new rent can take effect up to 52 weeks after the start of the tenancy. If the rent has been previously increased, the next increase can take effect after 52 weeks from the last increase.
This section allows tenants under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. An application can be made if the rent is not pursuant to a previous determination under this section and if more than six months have not elapsed since the beginning of the tenancy. Additionally, a tenant can challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under section 13(2) or 13A(2).
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal struck out the tenant's application due to an invalid notice of rent increase.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal struck out an application for determination of a new rent due to an invalid notice of rent increase. The notice was deemed invalid because it specified a date for the proposed new rent within the first 52 weeks of the tenancy, contrary to the Housing Act 1988.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
1
Case Reference : MAN/30UE/MNR/2020/0002
Property : 88 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Landlords : [NAME]
Tenant : [APPELLANT] of Application : Determination of rent under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988
Tribunal Members : Judge C [NAME] and venue of : Determination on the papers Hearing
Date of Decision : 3 December 2020
_______________________________________________
REASONS FOR DECISION ____________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
2 DECISION
The application for determination of a new rent is struck out.
REASONS
Background
1. The Property is held on an assured tenancy of which [NAME] is the landlord and [APPELLANT], the tenant.
2. By a notice to the tenant dated 7 November 2019, the landlord gave notice of an increase in rent for the Property from £800.00 per month to £1,200.00 per month, with effect from 1 January 2020.
3. On 31 December 2019, the tenant referred the landlord’s notice to the Tribunal under section 13(4) of the Housing Act 1988. The tenants’ application was in the prescribed form and was made before the date specified in the landlords’ notice for the start of the proposed new rent.
Law
5. Where a tenant has referred a valid landlord’s notice to the Tribunal under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988, section 14 of that Act requires the Tribunal to determine the rent at which it considers that the property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy. In so doing the Tribunal is required, by section 14(1) of the Act, to ignore the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2).
Jurisdiction
6. the Tribunal must first determine that the landlord’s notice under section 13(2) of the 1988 Act satisfied the requirements of that section and was validly served. Those requirements are that the notice was given in the prescribed form and was accompanied by the relevant guidance notes, that it gave at least one month’s notice of the proposed increase, and that it must specify a starting date for the proposed new rent which coincides with the beginning of a period of the tenancy, and that starting date is not earlier than 52 weeks after the date on which the rent was last increased using the statutory notice procedure. if no valid notice has been served, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the tenant’ s application for determination of a market rent and is obliged to strike out the application.
7. In a letter accompanying the application, the tenant, took issue with two matters. First, that his name in the notice had been misspelt as “[NAME]”. The Tribunal does not consider that this was misleading
3 in any way and the misspelling does not render the notice of increase invalid.
8. The second matter raised the tenant’s letter was that the notice could not be served within the first 12 months of the tenancy. According to paragraph 4(a) of his application the tenancy began on 1 April 2019, and under paragraph 9, there is no written tenancy agreement. On the basis of that information, the tenant has an assured monthly periodic tenancy the first period of which began on 1 April 2019. Under s. 13(2)(b)(ii) of the 1988 Act, the proposed date of rental increase in such a case cannot be earlier than 52 weeks after the date on which the first period of the tenancy began. In the present case, 52 weeks after that date is 1 April 2020 but the landlord’s notice of increase specifies 1 January 2020 as the date of increase, within the 52-week period.
9. The Tribunal wrote to the parties by a letter dated 6 October 2020, explaining the above jurisdiction issue, and inviting them to submit any representations within 14 days from the date of the letter. No response was received from either party.
10. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal determines that the notice of increase was invalid and therefore it has no jurisdiction to determine the tenants’ application, which is struck out pursuant to rule 9(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 10 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Found in Breach of Multiple Lease Covenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Financial Penalty Reduced in Tenancy Licensing Case
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Varies Lease to Include Service Charge
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charge Calculation Under Landlord and …
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Certificate to Tenants' Association
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 successfully argued that the landlord failed to comply with lease provisions regarding reserves and on-account charges.
- The claimant proved that the landlord's notice was invalid due to missing guidance notes, leading to the strike-out of the application.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant's application was dismissed because there was insufficient evidence of comparable properties for rent determination.
- The claimant's request was refused as they did not submit an appeal within the required 28-day period following the receipt of a final notice imposing a financial penalty.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant's application for determining a new rent was struck out.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to strike out the application because the landlord's notice of rent increase was invalid.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 and the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the notice of rent increase was invalid as it specified a date for the proposed new rent within the first 52 weeks of the 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 should ensure that their landlord's notice of rent increase complies with the requirements of the Housing Act 1988.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The notice of rent increase and the prescribed form were the key documents.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
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.