3 Montgomery Close, Colchester, Essex, CO2 8SJ CAM/22UG/MNR/2024/0636

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No CAM/22UG/MNR/2024/0636

Between

Jade KeebleApplicant

Jessica Cooper KeebleRespondent

Before

Mary Hardman FRICS IRRV(Hons)

Date 17 March 2025

DECISION

This has been a hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the parties. The documents that I was referred to are in individual responses produced by the Applicant and the Respondent. I have noted the contents and my decision is below. Background

[1]On 28 November 2024 the Applicant, the Tenant of 3 Montgomery Close, Colchester, Essex, CO2 8SJ (The Property), made an Application (the Application) to the Tribunal referring a notice of increase in rent (the Notice) by the Landlord of the Property under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.

[2]Enclosed with this application was a letter dated 1st October 2024 from the Landlord, stating that the rent would be increased from £650.00 per month to £900 per month with effect from 31 October 2024. A copy of the tenancy agreement was also enclosed.

[3]The Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Application and wrote to both parties on 13 December 2024 to indicate that Tribunal’s preliminary opinion was that it may not have jurisdiction to consider the matter because it appeared the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent may have been defective, as it did not appear to be in the form prescribed by the Act.

[4]The Tribunal then received an email from the Tenant explaining why they disagreed with the rental increase and explaining some of the improvements they had made to the property. They went on to further describe the current condition of the house and stated that there is damp and mould in the property. The Tenant also attached some photos of the garden, ceiling and under a sink.

[5]A subsequent email was received from the Tenant on 11 January 2025, providing further evidence of the mould inside the property and explaining an issue with the front door handle, the Tenant also submitted further photos.

[6]The Tribunal then reviewed the file again and on closer inspection of the application issued another letter stating that the tribunal may not have jurisdiction to consider the matter because it appears that the tenancy agreement contains a binding provision whereby the rent for a particular period will or may be greater than the rent for a previous period (i.e. a rent review mechanism) or it contains a provision whereby the rent may be increased within the first year of the tenancy.

[7]The Tenant sent a further email in response to this letter again pointing to the ‘damp/mouldy flat’ and that the tribunal had disregarded all of this evidence in their letter. The Tenant then went on to give an explaination of the condition of the property.

[8]The Landlord did not provide any representations. The Hearing

[9]This hearing has been determined on the papers provided, as no request for a hearing was received by either party The Law

[10]The Tribunal must determine that it has jurisdiction to hear the Application by reference to the validity of application, in order to go on to determine a rent under S14 of the Act.

[11]Section 13 of the Act deals with rent increases under assured periodic tenancies. Subsection (1) provides that it applies to: “(b) any other periodic tenancy which is an assured tenancy, other than one in relation to which there is a provision, for the time being binding on the tenant, under which the rent for a particular period of the tenancy will or may be greater than the rent for an earlier period.” Issues

[12]The Tribunal explained to both parties that it would only deal with the question of jurisdiction at this stage. It would issue further directions in respect of the the market rent should it be satisfied that it had jurisdiction to determine that rent. The Tribunal’s Decision

[13]The Tribunal would only be able to review the evidence provided by the Tenant (the emails and photos) if it was satified that it had jurisdiction to determine the application. The letter sent to the landlord and tenant from the Tribunal asked the parties to make representations in relation to this specifically and therefore did not make reference to requiring the evidence which was provided by the Tenant.

[14]Paragraph 4 of the tenancy agreement confirms the tenancy is a periodic tenancy and continues on a year-to-year basis until the landlord or the tenant terminates the tenancy.

[15]Paragraph 8 of the tenancy agreement states ‘the Landlord may increase the Rent for the property upon providing to the Tenant the greater of 30 days’ notice and any notice required by the act.

[16]The Tribunal gains its jurisdiction to deal with rent increases of assured periodic tenancies (eg week to week or month to month) from section 13(1) of the Housing Act 1988. Section 13 (1) applies to (a) a statutory periodic tenancy other than one which, by virtue of paragraph 11 or paragraph 12 in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act, cannot for the time being be an assured tenancy; and (b) any other periodic tenancy which is an assured tenancy, other than one in relation to which there is a provision, for the time being binding on the tenant, under which the rent for a particular period of the tenancy will or may be greater than the rent for an earlier period

[17]The Tribunal is of the opinion that, having reviewed the provisions in respect of the rent review, this is such a case and under the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 as set out at para 16(b) above, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the application is therefore struck out. Mary Hardman FRICS IRRV(Hons) Regional Surveyor Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), on a point of law only, then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e., give the date, the property, and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).