Tribunal Rules No Jurisdiction Over Rent Increase During Fixed Term
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that it could not decide on a landlord's proposed rent increase during the fixed term of an assured tenancy because the agreement already includes a clause for reviewing rents. This means the tenant must follow any existing procedures in their contract to challenge the rent increase.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is not entitled to have their landlord's proposed rent increase determined by the First-tier Tribunal if the increase occurs within the fixed term of the assured tenancy and the agreement includes a rent review clause.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to 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.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to determine the market rent for a property during the fixed term of an assured tenancy.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled that it had no jurisdiction to determine the market rent for a property during the fixed term of an assured tenancy, where the agreement includes a rent review clause. The decision was based on Section 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference MAN/00BY/MNR/2026/0127 Property [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], Liverpool [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME] Tenant’s Representative Landlord Torus Liverpool Landlord’s Address The Observatory, 1 Old Haymarket, Liverpool [POSTCODE] Landlord’s Representative Date of Application 21 April 2026 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members [NAME] – [NAME] of Decision 05 June 2026 Rent Determined Not applicable Date the new rent takes effect Not applicable
2
REASONS FOR THE
DECISION Background 1. On 10 February 2026, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £838.40 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £800.00 pcm to take effect from 01 April 2026.
2. On 16 March 2026, under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenant referred the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent.
3. The assured tenancy commenced on 27 November 2025 for a term of twelve months. The rental period is monthly. Determination and Valuation 4. It would appear that the Landlord has mistakenly used Form 4, under the Housing Act 1988 to notify the Tenant of a rent increase. However, this increase is within the fixed term of the tenancy and the agreement has a rent review clause within it. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Decision 5. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determines the market rent for this property. APPEAL PROVISIONS If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision. Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this statement of reasons (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Out Rent Determination Due to Contractual Clause
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Student Room
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Shorthold Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent After Tenancy Dispute
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rental Rate 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 proposed rent increase causes undue hardship to the tenant.
- The tenant disputes the proposed rent increase.
- The tenant refers the landlord's notice proposing a new rent in time.
- The rent should be set at a fair market rate considering the property's condition and location.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenancy agreement includes a contractual rent review clause.
- The proposed rent increase aligns with current market rates and does not cause undue hardship.
- The request for a rent determination is made during the fixed term of the assured tenancy.
- The tenant is not entitled to have their rent determined by the First-tier Tribunal if the agreement includes a rent review clause.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction to determine the market rent during the fixed term of an assured tenancy.
Who was involved?
A tenant and a landlord were involved in the dispute over a proposed rent increase.
How did the court decide, and why?
The Tribunal decided based on existing law that it lacked jurisdiction to review rent increases within fixed-term agreements with built-in rent review clauses.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied in this decision.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The key argument was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review rent increases during a fixed term with an existing rent review clause.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant, as it ruled the Tribunal could not determine the market rent.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing a similar situation should review their tenancy agreement to see if there are existing procedures for challenging rent increases.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The tenancy agreement and any notices served by the landlord were likely key pieces of evidence.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, either party can apply for permission to appeal on points of law within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent disputes.