Assured Tenancy - Rent Increases

The case of Robertson v Webb, Re Honley Road demonstrates the strict time limits imposed by the Housing Act 1988 on tenants regarding notices of proposed rent increase.

On 2 March 2017, the landlady, Mrs Gordon-Webb served a s13 notice to the tenant, Mr Robertson, with effect from 7 April 2017. On the 24 April, the landlady wrote to the tenant explaining that he is still continuing to pay under the old rate and asked him to pay the difference.

The tenant replied stating that he did not received any notice. He explained that he had been very ill for over a year and that he had arranged for house-minders. He added that they probably discarded the notice along with the junk mail and that he would apply to the tribunal to contest the increase.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) looked to s13(4) of the 1988 Act which states that the notice shall take effect as mentioned in the notice unless the tenant applies in the prescribed form to the tribunal “before the beginning of the new period specified in the notice”. The Tribunal concluded that, despite the tenant’s personal circumstances, the landlady did not act improperly – the notice was served in the appropriate prescribed form and had been served well outside the time limit imposed by statute. The FTT found that it did not have jurisdiction.

The tenant tried to appeal this decision but the Upper Tribunal refused. The refusal was based on the ground that the time limit under the 1988 Act was “an absolute one”. This case highlights the clear and concise provisions under the Housing Act 1988 and is an example of the absoluteness of the time limits it imposes.

Email Simon Parrott

Email Nastassia Khilkevich

Commercial Property eBrief 3 October 2019