Flat 6, 94 Princes Road, Liverpool, L8 8AD
Evidence considered
No evidence details extracted.
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The tribunal struck out the application because the landlord's notice proposing a new rent was defective on its face. The notice specified 1 February 2026 as the effective date, but this did not align with the periodic tenancy's monthly renewal date of the 20th of each month, so the notice did not comply with the Housing Act 1988. As the tribunal's jurisdiction depends on a valid notice, it found it had no jurisdiction to determine the application and struck it out under Rule 9(2)(a) without considering rent evidence.
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.