11 Synclen Road, Corbridge, Northumberland NE45 5JJ
Evidence considered
- No comparable rental evidence was submitted by either party.
- The application was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds before any rent evidence was considered.
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The Tribunal found that the landlord's Section 13 notice of increase was invalid because the proposed new rent start date (1 April 2024, a Monday) did not align with the beginning of a period of the tenancy, which began on a Tuesday (18 October 2016). As the notice failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirements, the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine a market rent under Section 14, and therefore no rent determination was made.
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.