20 Great Oak Drive, Altrincham, WA15 8UH
Evidence considered
- No comparable evidence considered; application struck out on jurisdictional grounds (invalid service of notice of increase).
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The Tribunal did not determine a market rent. The landlord's notice proposing an increase from £1,350 to £1,400 pcm was sent by email, which was not a permitted method of service under the tenancy agreement's notice clause. As the notice was therefore invalidly served, the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction and struck out the application under Rule 9(2)(a).
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.