Flat 2 Pear Tree Court, Bridge Street, Rothwell, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN14 6FF
Evidence considered
No evidence details extracted.
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The Tribunal did not determine a market rent. It found that the tenancy agreement contained its own contractual provisions permitting rent increases (clauses 4.5 and 4.6), meaning the landlord should not have used a Section 13 notice. Citing Mooney v Whiteland, the Tribunal held that prior to 1 May 2026 it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the Section 13 notice, and declined to proceed unless and until the County Court determined 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.