490 New Hall Lane, Preston, Lancashire, PR1 4TB
Evidence considered
- No comparable evidence was considered as the case was struck out for lack of jurisdiction before any rent determination was made.
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to determine a market rent under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988. The tenancy agreement's contractual periodic tenancy contained a rent review clause (clause 1.7.8) providing a mechanism for annual rent increases linked to CPI, which under section 13(1)(b) of the Act and the Court of Appeal authority Contour Homes Ltd v Rowen excludes the section 13 procedure from applying. As the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and could not transfer the case, the proceedings were struck out pursuant to Rule 9(2) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013, without any determination of a market 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.