VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over defective rent increase notice

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled it lacked jurisdiction due to a defective notice under the Housing Act 1988, affecting a tenant's request for a rent increase. The notice was deemed incorrect, leading to the Tribunal's lack of authority to make a decision.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant's notice of rent increase must comply with the prescribed form and timing requirements under the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

housing lawrent increasestribunal jurisdiction

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, excluding relevant low-cost tenancies. To secure an increase in rent, a landlord must serve a notice in a prescribed form on the tenant. The notice must propose a new rent to take effect at the start of a new period specified in the notice. This period must begin at least two months after the date of service of the notice. There are additional timing requirements based on the type of tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction due to a defective notice under the Housing Act 1988.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal ruled it lacked jurisdiction due to a defective notice under the Housing Act 1988, affecting a tenant's request for a rent increase.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BE/MNR/2019/0050 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : Mr [COUNSEL] (son) Respondent : [redacted] (Landlord) Type of Application : Determination as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mrs [NAME] MA MRICS

Date and Venue of Hearing

: 7 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Written Reasons : 05 July 2019

DECISION

2

The issue

1. The issue in these proceedings is was a notice of increase served by the landlord on the tenant under section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 served correctly or not? If it was not served correctly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

The facts

2. The tenant is the non-short told assured tenant of [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the flat”) under a lease dated 23 August 2018. The lease provides that it begins on Thursday, 23 August 2018 per month and then renews monthly until brought to an end. Accordingly, from 24 August 2018 the tenancy became a statutory periodic tenant.

3. On 04 February 2019, the landlord sent the tenant a notice proposing a new rent of £817.44 per month for the flat from 01 April 2019. On 10 April 2019, the Tribunal wrote to both parties expressing the preliminary opinion that it did not have jurisdiction because the landlord’s notice was defective.

The law

4. Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 provides as follows (our emphasis):

(2) For the purpose of securing an increase in the rent under a tenancy to which this section applies, the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice in the prescribed form proposing a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy specified in the notice, being a period beginning not earlier than— (a) the minimum period after the date of the service of the notice; and

(b) except in the case of a statutory periodic tenancy—

(i) in the case of an assured agricultural occupancy, the first anniversary of the date on which the first period of the tenancy began; (ii) in any other case, on the date that falls 52 weeks after the date on which the first period of the tenancy began; and (c) if the rent under the tenancy has previously been increased by virtue of a notice under this subsection or a determination under section 14 below—

(i) in the case of an assured agricultural occupancy, the first anniversary of the date on which the increased rent took effect;

(ii) in any other case, the appropriate date.

(3) The minimum period referred to in subsection (2) above is—

(a) in the case of a yearly tenancy, six months;

3

(b) in the case of a tenancy where the period is less than a month, one month; and

(c) in any other case, a period equal to the period of the tenancy.

Was the notice served on the right date?

5. Section 13(2)(b) is not engaged because this is a statutory periodic tenancy.

6. However, 13(2)(a) is engaged. But it is satisfied because more than one month’s notice was given.

7. Section 13(2) also requires the new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy specified in the notice.

8. In this case it is proposed a new rent will take effect on 01 April. This is not the beginning of a new period of the tenancy. The new period of the tenancy begins on the 23rd day in each month.

Conclusion

9. Accordingly, we find we have no jurisdiction in this case.

[NAME]: 5 July 2019

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

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.

i. 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.

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

4

📊 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 notice of rent increase was served at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy.
  • The notice of rent increase specified the correct period and timing to be valid under the Housing Act 1988.
  • The notice of rent increase was served in time according to Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant's notice of rent increase did not comply with the prescribed form and timing requirements under the Housing Act 1988.
  • The tenancy agreement contained a binding provision for a rent review, preventing referral to the Tribunal.
  • The tenancy did not comply with section 13(1) of the Housing Act 1988, disallowing referral to the Tribunal.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction due to a defective notice under the Housing Act 1988.

Who was involved?

A tenant requested a rent increase, while the landlord provided a notice of the increase.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided it lacked jurisdiction because the notice did not comply with the required form and timing under the Housing Act 1988.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 13, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was whether the notice was served correctly according to the Housing Act 1988.

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

The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure their notice complies with the Housing Act 1988 to avoid jurisdiction issues.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The notice of rent increase and the lease agreement were crucial documents.

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 complex legal issues.

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.