303 Ruby Court, 3-5 Knightland Road, London E5 9HR

LON/00AM/MNR/2026/0454 · Decided 2026-07-29 · flat · 3 bed

£2000current rent (pcm)
£3000landlord proposed (pcm)
—tribunal decided (pcm)

Evidence considered

Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: yes.

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal found that the original tenant no longer occupied the property as his main or principal home, having obtained an HMO licence and sublet the whole property to others, meaning the agreement no longer satisfied section 1 of the Housing Act 1988 and was not an assured (shorthold) periodic tenancy. As a result, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction under sections 13/14 of the 1988 Act to determine a market rent, and the application was struck out under Rule 9(2)(a) without any rent being 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 pack

Tenant 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 pack

Not 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.