Landlord won't issue section 13 notice when it is required

Linx100

I wonder if anyone has had this issue. The landlord notified tenant of a rent increase in a letter, i.e. did not use the prescribed form under section 13.

Tenant asked for a section 13 notice, but landlord refused by saying it is not required. However, in this situation it is required.

What are the tenants options in this situation? The tenant is not happy to accept the increase as it is nearly 40%.

Thanks

DE_612183

I would assume they carry on paying the existing amount as there is no contract in place to pay anything any different.

It depends on the situation of course - if you upset the landlord, chances are he'll serve a no fault eviction and then not give a reference.

propertyrental

Assuming you are right that "in this situation it is required." then the T can ignore the letter and continue to pay the original rent.

However T needs to be sure S13 is needed.

Why the T would ask for a S13 I have no idea. Seems bonkers!

Note that if the T starts to pay the new rent, it is legally assumed he has agreed the new rent which is then binding.

Grumpy_chap

Linx100 said:

I wonder if anyone has had this issue. The landlord notified tenant of a rent increase in a letter, i.e. did not use the prescribed form under section 13.

Tenant asked for a section 13 notice, but landlord refused by saying it is not required. However, in this situation it is required.

What are the tenants options in this situation? The tenant is not happy to accept the increase as it is nearly 40%.

Thanks

40% increase in one step is a big change.
The first thing the T would be wise to do is understand whether the rent they currently pay is at market rate, or well below market rate for some reason.  Then whether the new rent requested by the LL is at the current market rate.
That assessment might inform the T's thinking as, if the 40% uplift is then much higher than market rate, the T has the option to simply choose to move.  If the 40% uplift is near to market rate, then the T will need to give more consideration to options around negotiation.

theartfullodger

Landlord is correct he does not have to serve s13. If tenant starts paying increase then that's agreed, no further paperwork required.  (think there may be case law).


If tenant declines to pay increase many would expect landlord to serve a different notice - s21.

Sorry, life ain't fair.

Mr.Generous

40% sound steep, but has the rent been unchanged for many years? I saw a complaint where someone had a similar rise but was paying less than half the market rent and landlord decided to bring it up to date to help fund a new roof or something.

Linx100

propertyrental said:

Assuming you are right that "in this situation it is required." then the T can ignore the letter and continue to pay the original rent.

However T needs to be sure S13 is needed.

Why the T would ask for a S13 I have no idea. Seems bonkers!

Note that if the T starts to pay the new rent, it is legally assumed he has agreed the new rent which is then binding.

The T did not ask for the rent increase. The T only asked the landlord to notify the increase using the right procedure, i.e. by serving a section 13 notice. Having a section 13 notice would allow the T to challenge the rent increase in the rents tribunal. 

Linx100

Grumpy_chap said:

Linx100 said:

I wonder if anyone has had this issue. The landlord notified tenant of a rent increase in a letter, i.e. did not use the prescribed form under section 13.

Tenant asked for a section 13 notice, but landlord refused by saying it is not required. However, in this situation it is required.

What are the tenants options in this situation? The tenant is not happy to accept the increase as it is nearly 40%.

Thanks

40% increase in one step is a big change.
The first thing the T would be wise to do is understand whether the rent they currently pay is at market rate, or well below market rate for some reason.  Then whether the new rent requested by the LL is at the current market rate.
That assessment might inform the T's thinking as, if the 40% uplift is then much higher than market rate, the T has the option to simply choose to move.  If the 40% uplift is near to market rate, then the T will need to give more consideration to options around negotiation.

Yes, totally. However, if the T had been served the correct section 13 notice, they would be able to challenge the increase in the first tier tribunal if the new proposed rent is above market rate. Without the appropriate notice, they can't do that. It is true that the T has the option to ignore the letter and keep on paying the same rent, but the landlord may just decide to start the possession proceedings.

theartfullodger

Linx100 said:

propertyrental said:

Assuming you are right that "in this situation it is required." then the T can ignore the letter and continue to pay the original rent.

However T needs to be sure S13 is needed.

Why the T would ask for a S13 I have no idea. Seems bonkers!

Note that if the T starts to pay the new rent, it is legally assumed he has agreed the new rent which is then binding.

The T did not ask for the rent increase. The T only asked the landlord to notify the increase using the right procedure, i.e. by serving a section 13 notice. Having a section 13 notice would allow the T to challenge the rent increase in the rents tribunal. 

There is no "right" procedure: S13 is but one ..  

Increase served any other way may be challenged by tenant declining to pay increase.. (eg informal notice or new tenancy agreement with higher rent - tenant doesn't sign: Job done)#

£5 to an agreed housing charity if there is any way (England) of AST landlord increasing rent without option for tenant to challenge or simply decline to pay, increase doesn't happen.

Best wishes to all.

Linx100

theartfullodger said:

Landlord is correct he does not have to serve s13. If tenant starts paying increase then that's agreed, no further paperwork required.  (think there may be case law).


If tenant declines to pay increase many would expect landlord to serve a different notice - s21.

Sorry, life ain't fair.

Yes, rent can be increased if both parties agree, but this is not the case. The T is not happy about the proposed increase. My understanding is that without a valid section 13 notice, the T cannot challenge the rent increase in the Tribunal. 

anselld

theartfullodger said:

Linx100 said:

propertyrental said:

Assuming you are right that "in this situation it is required." then the T can ignore the letter and continue to pay the original rent.

However T needs to be sure S13 is needed.

Why the T would ask for a S13 I have no idea. Seems bonkers!

Note that if the T starts to pay the new rent, it is legally assumed he has agreed the new rent which is then binding.

The T did not ask for the rent increase. The T only asked the landlord to notify the increase using the right procedure, i.e. by serving a section 13 notice. Having a section 13 notice would allow the T to challenge the rent increase in the rents tribunal. 

There is no "right" procedure: S13 is but one ..  

Increase served any other way may be challenged by tenant declining to pay increase.. (eg informal notice or new tenancy agreement with higher rent - tenant doesn't sign: Job done)#

£5 to an agreed housing charity if there is any way (England) of AST landlord increasing rent without option for tenant to challenge or simply decline to pay, increase doesn't happen.

Best wishes to all.

If there is a contractual rent review formula in the contract such as RPI or CPI for example then the rent could be increased in line with the contract clause.  S13 would not be required and would in fact be invalid in those circumstances and it could not be successfully challenged at tribunal.  T can still refuse to pay of course, but then they can refuse to pay rent full-stop.