Rent Increase Cases

Where a statutory periodic assured tenancy makes no provision for increases in rent and the parties cannot agree an increase, the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice in the prescribed form specifying a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a specified new period of the tenancy (a "s.13 Notice"). That rent will take effect unless either the parties agree an alternative figure or the tenant refers the notice to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (England) or Rent Assessment Committee (Wales).

Here are some recent cases:

In Constantine v Bird [2025] UKUT 258 (LC) there was an argument whether a statutory periodic tenancy had arisen at all. The principle is that a statutory periodic tenancy does not arise where a fixed term tenancy had ended but the tenant is entitled, by virtue of the grant of another tenancy, to remain in possession of the same or substantially the same property. Mr Constantine was the tenant of Mr Bird under a tenancy which was expressed to be granted for a term of 12 months, thereafter renewable at the option of the tenant. There was no contractual provision governing any rent increase under such a “renewed” tenancy. At the end of the initial 12-month period, Mr Bird considered that a statutory periodic tenancy had arisen. Mr Constantine, however, thought that his tenancy was perpetually renewable at his option, so that there was no statutory periodic tenancy in existence and his rent could not be increased without his agreement. After some years, Mr Bird served notice under s.13, which Mr Constantine denied was effective. The notice was referred to the FTT which found for Mr Bird and determined a new rent. The Upper Tribunal dismissed an appeal. A perpetually renewable tenancy was an unusual form of tenancy and unequivocal words would be needed to show that the parties had intended to create one. Properly construed, the option to renew could only be exercised once and would not be incorporated into the terms of the renewed

In Shah v Thomas [2025] UKUT 263 (LC) there was dispute over the date on which the new rent shoudl take effect. The principle is that the new rent will generally take effect from the date specified in the s.13 notice, but the FTT may determine some later date if failure to do so would cause “undue hardship” to the tenant. Mr and Mrs Thomas were the tenants. A s.13 notice had been served on them which they had referred to the FTT. That Tribunal had determined a market rent which it directed should take effect from the date of its determination. The landlords appealed. The appeal was allowed. The power to impose a later date for payment of the rent only arose if the FTT was satisfied that failure to do so would cause undue hardship to the tenants. No evidence had been produced by the tenants about their financial position. The Upper Tribunal directed that the new rent take effect from the date specified in the s.13 notice.

In Teoh v Patsovska [2025] UKUT 237 (LC) there was a dispute over proceeding in the absense of a party. The principle is that the procedure in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is governed by the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. By r.34, the FTT has power to proceed with a hearing in the absence of a party if it is satisfied that notice has been given to that party and that the interests of justice are served by proceeding with the case. The respondent was the tenant. A s.13 notice had been served, proposing an increased rent and the respondent had referred that notice to the FTT. The FTT gave notice of the proceedings, including the case-management directions, to the letting agents but not to the landlord. Neither the agents nor the landlord attended the hearing and the FTT determined a rent which was significantly below that sought by the landlord. The Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal. The letting agents had no authority to deal with litigation on behalf of the landlord; it followed that the landlord had no notice of the proceedings. The FTTs decision was accordingly set aside and remitted for re-hearing.

Oliver Kew

Published on 25/02/2026