6 Milne Park West, New Addington, Croydon, CR0 0DN: LON/00AH/MNR/2024/0320
Residential Property Tribunal Decision of Judge (Mr I B Holdsworth MSc FRICS on 6 September 2024
Read the full decision in [ FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AH/MNR/2024/0320
Property : 6 Milne Park West, New Addington, Croydon, CR0 0DN Applicant : Sandy Bryan Representative : N/a Respondent : Croydon Affordable Homes Representative : N/a Type of application : Decision in relation to s.13(4) of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal members : Mr I B Holdsworth MSc FRICS RICS Registered Valuer
Venue : Remote Date of decision : 6 September 2024
DECISION
Decision The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this application for the reasons stated below. Background 1. On 29 May 2024 the Tribunal received an application from the Tenant for determination of the rent for 6 Milne Park West, New Addington, Croydon, CR0 0DN (‘the Premises’) under s.13(4) of the Housing Act 1988 (‘the 1988 Act’). 2. The Landlord had served a s.13(2) Notice on the Tenant dated 2 April 2024 to increase the rent from £1,118.34 per month to £1,495.91 per month, effective from 20 May 2024. 3. This application was reviewed by the tribunal legal officer and a letter was sent to the Applicant and copied to Respondents on 26 July 2024 to advise that the tribunal may not have jurisdiction to consider the application to contest the rent increase. The letter explained the reasons for this preliminary decision as follows: “The application was not received at this office before the date when the new rent specified in the notice of increase was to take effect. A Tribunal may therefore decide that the application is out of time and that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the rent.” 4. The parties were invited to make submissions on this preliminary observation. 5. The agent for the landlord replied by e mail on 5 August 2024 to confirm their willingness for this matter to be determined on papers. They gave no opinion that the application made by the tenant was out of time. No reply was received from the tenant. 6. The Tribunal is supplied with a copy of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement and Section 13 Notice dated 15 November 2017. No evidence is provided to the Tribunal about the date the Notice was given to the tenant. There is no challenge to the validity of the landlord’s Notice and nothing to suggest it had not been properly served. The Law 7. Section 13(4) of the 1998 Housing Act states: “Where a Notice is served under sub-section 2 above 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 appropriate Tribunal; or (b) the Landlord and Tenant agree on a variation of the rent which is different from that proposed in the Notice or agree that the rent should not be varied.” Reasons for the Decision 8. The s.13(2) Notice submitted to the Tribunal was dated 29 May 2024. This challenges a validly served Notice made by the Landlord on 2 April 2024, with an effective date of 20 May 2024. 9. The Tribunal has referred to the guidance provided at Note 3 of prescribed form 4, the Rent Notice served by the Landlord, that states: “If you do not accept the proposed new rent, and do not wish to discuss it with your landlord, you can refer this notice to the Tribunal. You must do this before the starting date of the proposed new rent in paragraph 4 of the notice. You should notify your landlord that you are doing so, otherwise he or she may assume that you have agreed to pay the proposed new rent.” 10. The s.13(4) application to the Tribunal to review the rent dated 20 May 2024 by the Applicant was made beyond the effective date specified in the 13(2) Notice. 11. The Tribunal has also sought guidance from the Upper Tribunal (UT) decision, Robertson v Gordon-Webb [2018] UKUT 235 LC that addresses the extent of discretion the First-tier Tribunal can exercise in extending time limits in Section 13(2) applications. The UT found that the legislations confer no discretion to the First-tier Tribunal to vary the timetable except in exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal has reviewed the circumstances surrounding the application and they are not persuaded the Applicant made all reasonable efforts to comply with the timetable in a timely manner. There are no grounds presented by the Applicant to the Tribunal that explain his delay in making the Tribunal application. 12. There is no justified and validated explanation provided by the Applicant of the cause of delay in making her application. There is therefore no justification or reasons available to the Tribunal to depart from the statutory timetable given there was a 9 day delay in completion, dating and submission of the Application form following the new rent start date. 13. It is the sole responsibility of the Applicant to ensure that any request to the Tribunal to review the rent complies with the necessary and appropriate procedure. This includes the compliance with the statutory timetable. 14. It is for these reasons that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the application.
Name: Ian Holdsworth Date: 5 September 2024 Valuer Chairman
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. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
].