61 York Avenue, Hayes, Middlesex, UB3 2TW
Evidence considered
- No comparable evidence considered; application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction before any rent assessment
- Decision based on legal analysis of tenancy agreement terms (fixed term continuing periodically, with RPI-linked rent review clause) rather than market comparables
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to determine a market rent. The tenancy, though continuing periodically after a 12-month fixed term, was a contractual (not statutory) periodic tenancy under Leeds City Council v Broadley, and it contained a binding contractual rent review clause (RPI-linked annual increase). Because section 13(1)(b) excludes tenancies with such a binding rent review provision, section 13 did not apply and no rent could be 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 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.