104 Riverside Road, St Albans, AL1 1SE
Evidence considered
- No comparable evidence was considered as the case was decided solely on a jurisdictional issue regarding validity of the section 13 notice.
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The Tribunal did not determine a market rent because it found it lacked jurisdiction. The landlord's section 13 notice proposed a new rent to start on 18 April 2025, but the tenancy periods ran from the 19th of each month, so the notice failed to start at the beginning of a tenancy period as required by section 13(2). As a result the notice was invalid, the existing rent continued to apply, and no rent determination was made. The tribunal also noted the tenancy agreement's clause about the landlord not requiring a rent increase did not amount to a contractual rent-review provision excluding Tribunal jurisdiction.
Read the original decision (PDF, GOV.UK)
Want the evidence, not just the decision?
Around half of the decisions in this database cite a problem with the evidence submitted — comparable tribunal outcomes are usually what decides these cases, for both sides. We're testing a paid evidence pack and a guided walkthrough of the application, built from this database.
Landlord evidence pack — from £15
Nearby tribunal outcomes, a rent level likely to survive a challenge, and an evidence pack in the format the tribunal expects — timed for when you serve a section 13 notice.
Register interest in the landlord packTenant pack — from £19
Whether challenging your rent increase is worth it, plus the comparable decisions to include with your MR1 application to the tribunal.
Register interest in the tenant packNot built yet — register your interest by email and we'll let you know when it's ready. This isn't legal advice; see the law and free advice options.