18 Intelligence Walk, Ashford, Kent, TN23 3FE
Evidence considered
- No comparable evidence was considered as the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to determine a market rent due to a contractual rent review clause in the tenancy agreement.
Tenant submitted evidence: yes. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The Tribunal declined jurisdiction and made no market rent determination. The tenancy agreement contained a contractual rent review clause, which under the pre-Renters Rights Act 2025 version of section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 took the tenancy outside the scope of sections 13/14, following the Upper Tribunal authority of Moat Homes Ltd v Carlo and Longhurst Group v Gristwood & Fovargue [2024] UKUT 415 (LC). As a result the Tribunal had no power to determine a rent, and any dispute about the validity of the landlord's notice would need to be resolved in the County Court.
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.