24 Judith Court, Stratford upon Avon, CV37 9YN
Evidence considered
No evidence details extracted.
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The tenant referred a section 13 rent increase notice to the Tribunal, but the tenancy agreement itself contained a contractual provision governing the first rent increase, capping it at the level a Rent Assessment Committee would have set. Following Helena Partnership v Brown, Contour Homes v Rowen, and Chouhan and Thomas v Earls High School, the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 to determine the rent in these circumstances, since the statutory procedure is excluded where the tenancy agreement provides its own mechanism for the first increase. The application was accordingly struck out under Rule 9(2)(a) without any determination of 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.