VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant's Rent Increase Claim Rejected by First-tier Tribunal

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, a tenant applied to the First-tier Tribunal to determine a rent increase but was unsuccessful. The tribunal ruled that it did not have the authority to decide on the rent increase because the tenancy agreement already provided a clear method for calculating rent increases.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant cannot seek determination of a rent increase under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 if the tenancy agreement provides a specific mechanism for such increases.

Topics

rent increasejurisdiction

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section of the Housing Act 1988 applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, excluding those with a specific mechanism for rent increases agreed upon between the landlord and tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the rent increase due to the mechanism provided in the tenancy agreement.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) dismissed a tenant's application for determining a rent increase under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988, stating that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to a specific mechanism outlined in the tenancy agreement.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/22UG/MNR/2020/0033 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

A: BTMMREMOTE Applicant

[COUNSEL] and [COUNSEL] : [COUNSEL] Respondent : [redacted] : [COUNSEL] of [NAME] of [NAME] : Decision in relation to section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal member(s) : Tribunal Judge [NAME] : Telephone hearing Date of decision : 8 March 2021

DECISION

Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote audio hearing which has been not objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was A:BTMMCOURT. A face-to-face

2 hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing. The documents that we were referred to are in a bundle of 59 pages, the contents of which we have noted. Decision: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this [NAME] for the reasons stated below. Background:

1. The tribunal received an [NAME] under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 on 128 December 2020 2. A remote telephone hearing took place on 8 March 2021, which was attended by those named on the front page. In addition, we had the documents mentioned above, which included the [NAME] and supporting letter from the applicants, a copy of the tenancy agreement, directions issued by the tribunal on 5 January 2021 and submissions by the parties. The law:

3. The law applicable to this case is to be found at section 13(1) of the Housing Act 1988, which says as follows: 13 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.

Facts found: 4. The tenancy agreement produced to us contains the following clause at 1.7.8. under the heading ‘Rent Increase’: 1.7..8.1 If for any reason the Tenant remains in possession of the Property, or the lawful tenant of the Property, for more than 12 months then the Rent will increase once each year

3 1.7.8.2. The first increase will be on the first Rent Due Date more than 364 days after the commencement date. 1.7.8.3 Subsequent increases will be on the first Rent Due Date more than 364 days since the last rent increase. 5. 1.7.8.4 In clauses 1.7.8.2 and 1.7.8.3 the Rent will increase by the amount stated for the annual increase in the CPI (Consumer Price Index as published by the Office of National Statistics) as quoted for the month two months prior to the month of the increase.

Reasons for the decision: 6. By reason of s13(1)(b) the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the rent for the Property as clause 1.7.8.4 provides the mechanism for such increase. It appears to be agreed that the relevant percentage for October 2020 is 0.9%.

Name: Tribunal Judge Dutton Date: 8 March 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 [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.

4 If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 tribunal allows claims where there is an urgent need for repairs or works.
  • The tribunal grants relief when proper consultation procedures are not followed.
  • The tribunal permits challenges to the reasonableness and payability of service charges.
  • The tribunal allows applications for unconditional dispensation under certain conditions.
  • The tribunal upholds tenants' rights to purchase the freehold of their property.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The claim is dismissed if the tenancy agreement specifies a mechanism for rent increases.
  • The application is struck out if submitted after the rent increase has taken effect.
  • The claim is unsuccessful if the claimant fails to engage in the proceedings.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal decided it did not have the authority to determine the rent increase.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that it lacked jurisdiction because the tenancy agreement already specified how rent increases would be calculated.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the tenancy agreement provided a specific mechanism for rent increases.

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 any specific mechanisms regarding rent increases.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The tenancy agreement and the relevant sections of the Housing Act 1988 were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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 tenancy agreements.

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.