Flat 6, 3 Bailey Place, London, N16 8BA
Evidence considered
- No comparable evidence was considered as the application was struck out on jurisdictional grounds before reaching the merits.
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The Tribunal did not reach a market rent determination. The tenant challenged the validity of the landlord's Notice of Increase, which was undated and allegedly gave less than the required one month's notice. Following Mooney v Whiteland, the Tribunal found it could not confirm jurisdiction where the notice's validity was in doubt and, being satisfied the notice was invalid due to the missing date, struck out the application for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 9(2)(a). No comparable evidence was considered and no rent was 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.