15 Bishops Building, The Old Works, High Wycombe, HP11 2WQ
Evidence considered
- No comparable evidence was considered as the case was decided purely on a jurisdictional point.
- The decision turned on interpretation of clause 10.2 of the tenancy agreement (an RPI-linked rent review provision), not on market evidence.
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The Tribunal struck out the application for lack of jurisdiction. The tenancy agreement contained a binding rent review clause (clause 10.2) linking annual rent changes to the Retail Prices Index, which under section 13(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1988 removes the Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine a market rent under sections 13/14, regardless of the tenant's argument that the landlord's proposed increase exceeded the RPI figure. No market rent was therefore determined; the tenant was advised to seek legal advice on enforcing the tenancy agreement's RPI mechanism instead.
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.