208a High Street, Bromley, Kent BR1 1PW
Evidence considered
- No comparable evidence considered; case decided solely on jurisdictional grounds relating to a contractual rent review clause.
- Tribunal relied on Upper Tribunal case law (Moat Homes Limited v Carlos; Longhurst Group v Gristwood and Fovargue) regarding rent review clauses ousting jurisdiction.
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The Tribunal declined jurisdiction to determine a market rent. It found that the tenancy agreement contained a rent review clause (Clause 5.17) allowing the landlord to review and increase rent in line with market rent of similar properties, which was sufficient for the parties to ascertain the rent payable themselves. Relying on Upper Tribunal authority (Moat Homes v Carlos; Longhurst Group v Gristwood and Fovargue), the Tribunal held this type of clause ousts the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 13, so no rent was determined.
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.