8 St Marys Avenue, Barnetby, North Lincolnshire, DN38 6HU
Evidence considered
- No comparable evidence considered as the application was struck out for lack of jurisdiction before any rent determination.
- Tribunal relied on case law (Mooney v Whiteland; Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd) regarding validity of notices and jurisdiction, not on rental comparables.
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. Although it found a mis-spelling of the tenant's name in the landlord's notice did not invalidate it, the Tribunal determined that the proposed rent start date (20 May 2026) was not the beginning of a new period of the periodic tenancy (which renewed on the 19th of each month), so the section 13 notice did not comply with the Housing Act 1988. As the notice was invalid, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction 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.