1a Norfolk Road, Cliftonville, Margate, Kent, CT9 2HU
Evidence considered
- No market-rent comparable evidence was considered; the decision turned entirely on the validity of the landlord's statutory rent-increase notice.
- Tenant provided a prior 2021 rent increase notice and bank statements to show the joint tenancy and rent payment date.
- Landlord conceded the address on the notice was incorrect but argued the property was still identifiable.
Tenant submitted evidence: yes. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The Tribunal found the landlord's section 13(2) notice invalid and made no determination of market rent. The notice failed to serve its statutory purpose because it omitted one of the two joint tenants, and it also proposed an incorrect effective date that was not the first day of a tenancy period (the tenancy ran from the 15th of each month, not the 1st). A separate error in the property address was held not fatal on its own, but combined with the other defects the notice could not stand, so the case was returned without a determined rent.
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.