502 Wellington Wharf, 4 Lightbody Street, Liverpool, L5 9AE
Evidence considered
- No comparable evidence considered; application struck out for lack of jurisdiction before any market rent evidence was assessed.
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The tribunal struck out the application for lack of jurisdiction rather than determining a market rent. The tenancy agreement contained a binding contractual rent review clause allowing the landlord to increase rent (by CPI+1%) from a specified Rent Variation Date, including during the first 12 months of the tenancy. Section 13(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1988 excludes tenancies with such a binding rent variation provision from the section 13 procedure, so the Tribunal had no power to determine a market rent and struck out the application under Rule 9(2)(a).
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.