63 Benson Avenue, East Ham, London E6 3EE
Evidence considered
- No comparable evidence considered; case decided purely on a jurisdictional preliminary issue regarding a contractual rent review clause.
- Tribunal referenced Moat Homes Limited & Ors v Carlo & Ors [2024] UKUT 415 (LC) and Mooney v Whiteland [2023] EWCA Civ 167 as legal authorities, not property comparables.
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The Tribunal struck out the application for lack of jurisdiction. It found that the assured periodic tenancy agreement contained a binding contractual rent review clause (annual review linked to RPI with a negotiated 5–10% increase), and following the Upper Tribunal's decision in Moat Homes Limited & Ors v Carlo & Ors [2024] UKUT 415 (LC), such a clause ousts the FtT's jurisdiction to determine a market rent under section 14. No market rent was therefore determined; the landlord was advised it could serve a fresh notice based on the rent review clause or seek County Court confirmation of the notice's validity.
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.