Flat 3507, 9 Churchyard Row London SE11 4FJ LON/00AD/MNR/2022/0103

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00AD/MNR/2022/0103

Between

Mr. Tural ValiyevApplicant

Dylan (Jersey) LimitedRespondent

Mr. Tural ValiyevTenant

Mr. James Chapman, UNCLE Relocation General Manager andLandlord

Before

Mr. Charles Norman FRICS

Valuer Chairman

In person Landlord : Dylan (Jersey) Limited Representatives : : Mr. James Chapman, UNCLE Relocation General Manager and Ms. Hannah Staddon, UNCLE Area Operations Manager for the Applicant

Date 20 April 2023

Property: London SE11 4FJ

Type of application: Section 13 Housing Act 1988 Mr. Charles Norman FRICS

DECISION

[1](1) The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this application for the reasons stated below.

[2](2) The Tribunal orders that the application be struck out.

[3]Description of hearing This has been a remote determination by videoconferencing which has been not objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was V:CVPREMOTE.

REASONS

[1]On 31 January 2023, the Tribunal received an application from the Tenant, dated 31 January 2023.

[2]The application referred a Landlord’s Notice of Increase in relation to Flat 3507, 9 Churchyard Row London SE11 4FJ (the subject property). The Notice of Increase was dated 20 January 2023 and proposed to increase the rent of the subject property to £3155 per month, with effect from 1 April 2023.

[3]On 24 February 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the parties informing them that a Legal Officer had formed a preliminary opinion that the Tribunal might lack jurisdiction to consider the matter. The reason given was that the Landlord’s notice dated 20 January 2023 was not a valid notice under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.

[4]The matter was set down for a preliminary determination of the jurisdictional issue on papers without an oral hearing unless either party requested the same. The tenant requested a hearing. The parties were sent a Reply Form and directed to return it with any written submissions by 9 March 2023. The tenant made a written submission. This included a copy of a section 21 notice he had been sent.

[5]At the hearing both parties agreed that the notice of rent increase sent was not a valid section 13 notice. The Law

[6]Section 13(4) states: Where a notice [a notice of increase] is served …a new rent specified in the notice shall take effect as mentioned in the notice unless before the beginning of the new period specified in the notice,- “(a) the tenant by an application in the prescribed form refers the notice to [the Tribunal]…”

[7]In relation to the form of a notice, section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 provides that the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice in the prescribed form proposing a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy specified in the notice. The prescribed form is Form D under the Regulatory Reform (Assured Periodic Tenancies) (Rent Increases) Order 2003. Findings

[8]The Notice referred to the Tribunal was an email. The Tribunal finds that it has no jurisdiction to consider this notice dated 20 January 2023 because it is not in Form D under the Regulatory Reform (Assured Periodic Tenancies) (Rent Increases) Order 2003 and is therefore invalid. Indeed, this was not in dispute between the parties.

[9]Any issue relating to the section 21 notice is for the County Court and not the Tribunal and the Tribunal therefore makes no comment in relation to it. Disposal

[10]Rule 9(2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 provide as follows: The Tribunal must strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings or case if the Tribunal— (a) does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings … Therefore, the Tribunal orders that the application be struck out.

[11]The Tribunal advises the tenant to seek legal advice in relation to the section 21 Notice. The Tribunal has directed the case officer to provide a list of potentially free sources of such advice. Name: Mr. Charles Norman FRICS Date: 20 April 2023 ANNEX - 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), 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. Any appeal in respect of the Housing Act 1988 should be on a point of law. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).