The county court and not the rent assessment committee (RAC) has jurisdiction to determine the validity of a notice served under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the notice).
Pursuant to section 13, a notice to increase rent under a periodic assured tenancy must propose a new rent, in the prescribed form, “to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy specified in the notice”. Thus, for a weekly tenancy beginning on a Monday, the notice must specify a Monday as the date from which the new rent will take effect. If a valid notice has been served and before the beginning of the new period specified the tenant fails to refer the matter to the RAC or come to an agreement with the landlord then the new proposed rent will take effect.
In Mooney v Whiteland [2023] EWCA Civ 67; [2023] PLSCS 24, the respondent tenant occupied her cottage in Carmarthenshire under a periodic tenancy at a weekly rent of £25. The rent fell due on the Monday of each week, but she ordinarily paid the preceding Friday.
In 2018, the appellant landlord served a notice proposing to increase the rent to £100 per week. The proposed rent was stated to take effect on a Friday rather than the following Monday when the weekly tenancy began. The tenant disputed the validity of the notice, but did not refer the matter to the RAC. She continued to pay her original weekly rent.
The landlord issued possession proceedings on rent arrears grounds. The tenant argued the rent had not been validly increased. She succeeded on appeal in the county court. The circuit judge found the notice would not have been clear to a reasonable recipient as per the principle laid down in Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] UKHL 19. Further, only the county court had jurisdiction, under section 40, to determine the validity of the notice.
The Court of Appeal agreed. Relying on earlier case law, it held that if the Mannai principle was invoked, there had to be no reasonable doubt as to what the notice was intended to say. In the present case, it was unclear if the new rent was intended to take effect on the Friday or Monday. A reasonable tenant looking at the notes on the prescribed form would have expected the proposed rent to start at the beginning of the period of the tenancy. The landlord failed to comply with the requirements of section 13 and the notice was invalid.
The Court of Appeal also found that under section 40 only the county court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the notice. Section 14 clearly provided that the jurisdiction of the RAC was to determine the appropriate rent.
Elizabeth Dwomoh is a barrister at Lamb Chambers
