20 Birkhall Close, Chatham ME5 7QD
Evidence considered
- No comparable evidence considered; the case turned solely on the validity of the landlord's rent increase notices, not on market rent evidence.
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The tribunal found both purported section 13(2) notices invalid: the first proposed a rent start date that was not the start of a tenancy period and was unsigned and undated, and the second was also unsigned and undated. Because the prescribed form requires signature and date to confirm the landlord's intent and allow the tenant to check the lawful start date, neither notice left a reasonable recipient in no doubt as to its terms, and the landlord failed to prove service dates needed to check compliance with the minimum notice period. As there was no valid notice proposing a new rent, the tribunal made no determination of a market 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.