Tribunal Cannot Determine Market Rent After Withdrawn Notice
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided it could not determine the market rent after the landlord withdrew the rent increase notice. This means the tenant cannot challenge the rent increase once the notice is withdrawn.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant cannot challenge a rent increase notice once the landlord withdraws the notice.
📖 What the law says
This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to serve a notice proposing an increase in rent. The notice must be in a prescribed form and specify a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy. The new period must begin at least two months after the date of the notice's service. Additionally, if the rent has previously been increased, the new period must align with specific dates outlined in the act.
A tenant under an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy, provided the rent is not pursuant to a previous determination under this section and more than six months have not elapsed since the beginning of the tenancy. Furthermore, a tenant can also challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under section 13(2) or 13A(2) within the specified timeframe.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the market rent under S.14 of the Housing Act 1988.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to determine the market rent under S.14 of the Housing Act 1988 after the landlord withdrew the rent increase notice under S.13.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AE/MNR/2019/0100 Property : 8 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : In person. Respondent : [redacted] : [COUNSEL] of application : Decision in relation to jurisdiction under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal member(s) : [NAME], FRICS, Ms. J. Dalal Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 11 October 2019
DECISION
2
Decision: The Tribunal determines that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the market rent under S.14 of the Housing Act 1988 in relation to this application, for the reasons stated below. Background:
1. From the papers provided it appears that the applicant Mr. [APPELLANT], succeeded to a tenancy originally granted to either both of his parents or his father. It is not clear which. No issue has been taken with respect to the terms of the tenancy, and the tenant has previously applied to this tribunal under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 for a determination of the market rent payable.
2. In this instance, the landlord served a Notice under S.13 to increase the rent with effect from 1 September 2019 and recorded on that Notice that the existing rent was £1,416.40 and would increase from that date to £1,458.33.
3. The tenant, Mr. [APPELLANT], referred that Notice to the Tribunal on 5 August 2019. The tribunal issued directions on 12 August that required the parties to submit details of any rents for similar properties together with a statement of case.
4. Mr. [NAME] wrote to the tribunal to explain that the property had been a shell when the original tenancy was granted in 1973, and by agreement with the then landlord fitting out works were undertaken to make what had been a storage unit into the current property.
5. Mr. [NAME] confirmed that since that time he had carried out redecoration of door and window frames. He also raised the issue in his representations that the rent identified on the Notice of Increase was not the rent passing and that he paid a lower amount. He produced evidence of his rental payments that showed he was actually paying £858.33 per month.
6. Mr. [NAME] requested an oral hearing at which his Mother and a friend attended on his behalf. However, prior to the start of the hearing, the tribunal received correspondence from the landlord to say that they had identified an error in the Notice (presumably the incorrect rent noted), and they had withdrawn the Notice and served another to replace it.
7. The Notice of Increase having been withdrawn, the tribunal has no continuing jurisdiction to determine this matter and must therefore close its files. We will take no further action in relation to this application.
3 8. The tribunal did explain to Mr. [NAME] mother that, if Mr. [NAME] wished to dispute the new Notice of Increase then a referral of that Notice to the tribunal would be required. Name: [NAME] [NAME]: 11 October 2019
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).
4
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Tenancy Based on Market Value
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Successfully Acquires Right to Manage Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs Due to Dry Rot
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repairs Dispensation Without Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) RTM Company Granted Dispensation for Urgent Electrical Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Challenge Against Defective Rent Increase Notice
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 lost its power to decide the case once the landlord withdrew the rent increase notice.
- The tribunal advised the tenant that a new referral would be needed to dispute any new rent increase notice.
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 market rent after the landlord withdrew the rent increase notice.
Who was involved?
The case involved a tenant and a landlord.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided it lacked jurisdiction because the landlord withdrew the notice before the hearing, thus removing the basis for the tribunal's authority.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the landlord withdrew the notice, thereby removing the tribunal's jurisdiction.
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 be aware that once a landlord withdraws a rent increase notice, the tenant cannot challenge the rent increase.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The withdrawal of the rent increase notice by the landlord was the critical piece of evidence.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days.
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 complex legal issues.