3 Montgomery Close, Colchester, Essex, CO2 8SJ
Condition: Tenant reported damp and mould throughout the property, along with a faulty front door handle.
Evidence considered
- Tenant submitted emails and photographs showing damp, mould, and a faulty door handle, but this evidence was not considered as the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction.
- No comparable rental evidence was reviewed since the case was struck out at the jurisdiction stage.
Tenant submitted evidence: yes. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The Tribunal did not determine a market rent because it found it lacked jurisdiction. The tenancy agreement contained a provision allowing the landlord to increase rent (a rent review mechanism) binding on the tenant, which under s.13(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1988 excludes such tenancies from the s.13 notice-of-increase procedure. The application was therefore struck out without consideration of the comparable or condition evidence submitted by the tenant.
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.