VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Successfully Challenges Invalid Rent Increase Notice

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant challenged a landlord's notice of rent increase because it stated the wrong current rent. The notice proposed increasing the rent from £146.01 to £167.10 per week, but the actual current rent was £142.61 per week. The First-tier Tribunal agreed that the notice was invalid due to the incorrect rent statement, especially since the tenant receives Universal Credit.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to challenge a landlord's notice of rent increase if it materially misstates the current rent.

Topics

rent increaseinvalid noticeUniversal Credit

Provisions

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal found the landlord's notice of rent increase invalid due to a material misstatement of the current rent.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal found a landlord's notice of rent increase invalid due to a material misstatement of the current rent, affecting a tenant receiving Universal Credit. The notice proposed increasing the rent from £146.01 to £167.10 per week, but the current rent was stated incorrectly as £146.01 instead of £142.61 per week. Judge A Harris ruled the notice invalid on 12 July 2022.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BG/MNR/2022/0055 HMCTS Code (paper, video, audio) :

P: PAPERREMOTE

Property : 27 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant : Miss N Aka Landlord : [APPELLANT] of Application : Section 13 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] [NAME] and venue of Consideration : 12 July 2022 [ADDRESS] W1 Date of Decision : 12 July 2022

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

Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has not objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE face-to-face hearing was not held because no one requested a hearing and allisues could be dealt with on

paper. The documents that the Tribunal were referred to are in a bundle of 10 documents, the contents of which have been noted.

REASONS

The Application 1. The Tribunal received an application from the Tenant, Miss [APPELLANT] dated 28 March 2022. The application was received by the Tribunal on 1 April 2022.

2. The application referred a Landlord’s Notice of Increase that was in relation [ADDRESS] E1 (the subject property). The Notice of Increase was dated 25 February 2022 and proposed to increase the rent of the subject property from £146.01 per week to £167.10 per week with effect from 4 April 2022 both inclusive of services. Facts Found 3. The tenant made submissions that the notice of increase stated the wrong rent and supplied a statement from Universal Credit setting out the previous rent which was stated to be £142.61 per week including services.

4. No evidence was submitted by the Respondent in rebuttal. Discussion and Reasons for the Decision 5. The notice of increase materially misstates the current rent which could have consequences for the tenant if she continues to be in receipt of Universal Credit. The tribunal finds the notice of increase to be invalid and that it does not have jurisdiction.

Name: [NAME]: 12 July 2022

ANNEX - 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. Any appeal in respect of the Housing Act 1988 should be on a point of law.

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's application was received by the Tribunal on April 1, 2022.
  • The tenant argued that the notice of increase stated an incorrect current rent.
  • The tenant provided a statement from Universal Credit showing the previous rent was £142.61 per week.
  • The landlord's notice of increase materially misstated the current rent.
  • The misstatement of rent could affect the tenant's Universal Credit payments.
  • The Tribunal found the notice of increase to be invalid.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The respondent landlord did not submit any evidence to counter the tenant's claims.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision found the landlord's notice of rent increase invalid because it materially misstated the current rent.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the notice was invalid because it misstated the current rent, which could affect the tenant's Universal Credit payments.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 Section 13 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the notice materially misstated the current rent.

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

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can challenge a landlord's notice of rent increase if it materially misstates the current rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence included a statement from Universal Credit showing the correct current rent.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions 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 like this.

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.