Tenant's Application Struck Out Due to Invalid Rent Increase Notice
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal struck out a tenant's application for increasing rent because the notice sent by the landlord was not in the correct format as required by law.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's application for rent increase is invalid if the notice is not in the prescribed form.
📖 What the law says
This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, excluding relevant low-cost tenancies. It allows landlords to propose an increase in rent by serving a notice in a prescribed form to the tenant. The notice must specify a new rent amount and the start date for the new rent, which must be at least two months after the date of the notice.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to an invalid rent increase notice.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) struck out a tenant's application for rent increase due to an invalid notice that did not conform to the prescribed form under the Housing Act 1988.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :
LON/00BF/MNR/2023/0029
HMCTS Hearing Code : CVPREMOTE Property :
39 Prince of [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted] : In person Respondent: [redacted] : Ms [COUNSEL] of application : Section 13 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal members : Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME] Mr [NAME] and Hearing Date : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] 2 May 2023 Date of decision : 2 May 2023
DECISION
This has been a remote video hearing which has been consented to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was CVPREMOTE. A face-to-face hearing was not held because no-one requested the same, and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing. The documents to which the Tribunal were referred comprise approximately 25 pages, the contents of which have been noted.
Decision:
1. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this application for the reasons stated below.
2. The application is therefore STRUCK OUT. Background:
3. On 15 January 2023, the tribunal received an application under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988, dated 23 January 2023. A copy of the tenancy agreement was supplied.
4. The landlords’ notice which took the form of an email, proposed an increase in rent commencing on 9 January 2023. The landlord’s email was dated 5 January 2023.
5. On 23 February 2023, a Legal Officer caused a letter to be sent to the parties, expressing a preliminary opinion that the landlord’s notice might be defective as it did not appear to be in the form prescribed by the Act.
6. The jurisdictional matter was directed to be determined on paper without a hearing, unless either party requested a hearing which the landlord did. Neither party made written representations dealing with the preliminary point.
7. The matter was heard by videoconferencing. The applicant appeared in person and the landlord was represented by Ms [RESPONDENT].
The law: 8. Section 13(2) states: “For the purpose of securing an increase in rent under a tenancy to which this section applies, the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice in the prescribed form...” (emphasis added) The prescribed form is Form 4 of the Regulatory Reform (Assured Periodic Tenancies) (Rent Increases) Order 2003.
Facts found:
9. The email dated 5 January 2023 purporting to increase the rent was not in Form 4 and therefore invalid. That email cannot be used to increase the rent. Disposal 10. As the notice is invalid, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the matter further.
11. Where the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction it is required to strike out applications, pursuant to rule 9(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013.
Name: Mr [NAME]: 2 May 2023
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 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Increase Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Financial Penalty to £500
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drainage Repair Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Costs for RTM Company
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Reduced Due to Property's Poor Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent Increase for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Additional Works Under Landlord and Tenant…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Recover Costs from RTM Company Following Successful RTM…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Tenancy
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 application reflects the property's condition and market value.
- The landlord seeks dispensation from consultation due to urgency and lack of demonstrated prejudice.
- The landlord is entitled to reasonable costs recovery after a successful RTM application.
- The application complies with statutory requirements regarding consultation and fees.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The notice for rent increase is not in the prescribed form.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The application was struck out because the notice was not in the correct format.
Who was involved?
A tenant and a landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to strike out the application because the notice did not follow the prescribed form under the Housing Act 1988.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 and the Regulatory Reform (Assured Periodic Tenancies) (Rent Increases) Order 2003 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the notice was not in the prescribed form.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure their notice is in the correct format to avoid having their application struck out.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The email notice sent by the landlord was crucial as it was not in the prescribed form.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but only if permission to appeal is granted within 28 days of receiving the written reasons for the decision.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving legal matters.
