Station Road, Sidcup
Close

How can we help?

Please fill in this form and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Please enter your name
Please enter your email address
Please enter your telephone number
Please enter a question
Please let us know how you heard about us
Please enter the verification code

We’ll only use this information to handle your enquiry and we won’t share it with any third parties. For more details see our Privacy Policy

FTT Did Not Have Jurisdiction to Determine Rents

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 provide a statutory scheme for landlords to increase the rent payable under an assured periodic tenancy by serving notice of the proposed increase on the tenant, who may then refer the proposal to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) for determination. Under Section 13(1)(b) of the Act, however, the right to refer a rent increase to the FTT does not apply if the tenancy includes a provision that entitles the landlord to increase the rent. The Upper Tribunal (UT) recently confirmed this in upholding two landlords' appeals against rent determinations.

The tenant of a two-bedroom house and the tenants of two flats in a block of flats had been given notices of rent increases by their respective landlords. The notices were in the form prescribed by Section 13 and included guidance explaining that the tenants could refer them to the FTT. After the tenants did so, the FTT concluded in all three cases that the new rent should be lower than the figure proposed by the landlord.

It was only in their appeals to the UT that the landlords argued that the tenancies contained provisions allowing for rent increases and thus fell within the exception in Section 13(1)(b). The UT heard the three appeals together as they concerned the same issue, namely whether the FTT had jurisdiction to determine the tenants' rent.

The UT took note of case law establishing that use of the form prescribed under Section 13 could not confer jurisdiction on the FTT, given that Parliament had legislated that Sections 13 and 14 did not apply to assured periodic tenancies containing contractual rent review clauses.

Allowing the landlords' appeals, the UT concluded that Section 13 did not apply to the tenancies as they contained rent review clauses of the sort described in Section 13(1)(b). The UT noted that the expense and inconvenience of the proceedings had been caused by the inappropriate and misleading use of the form prescribed by Section 13, which created the false impression that the FTT might be able to determine a different rent when it could not.