Angelo Perotti v Amboh Properties Limited

A notice under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 is valid if it identifies a lawful commencement date satisfying the statutory timing requirements. It need not express the proposed rent for the same period as the existing rent.

A notice may clearly propose both an increased rent and a change from quarterly to monthly rental periods. The tenancy’s rental periods change only by agreement. If there is no agreement, a monthly figure may be converted into the corresponding quarterly rent.

The tenant appealed against the First-tier Tribunal’s corrected decision determining the rent payable for his assured tenancy. The tenancy derived from a 1956 letting under which rent was payable quarterly. The landlord’s notice under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 proposed a new rent expressed monthly, with effect from a quarter day.

The FTT initially regarded the notice as probably invalid, then set that decision aside for procedural unfairness. It subsequently held the notice valid and determined a new rent. The appeal concerned the validity of the notice, the FTT’s jurisdiction and reasoning, and whether earlier unsuccessful rent-increase attempts prevented the later increase.

1. Appeal dismissed. The notice served on 15 May 2024 was valid. The FTT’s corrected determination of £1,150 per month was effective, but the rent remained payable quarterly at £3,450 per quarter.
2. Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 requires the notice to identify a commencement date satisfying the minimum-period, anniversary and beginning-of-a-new-tenancy-period requirements. Applying Mooney v Whiteland [2023] EWCA Civ 67, all three requirements concern the date on which the increase takes effect. The specified date, 29 September 2024, was a quarter day and was more than one quarter after service.
3. The fact that the proposed rent was expressed monthly did not invalidate the notice. Section 13 contained no requirement that the proposed rental period match the existing period. The prescribed form permitted such a proposal, provided it was clear.
4. The notice could propose a change from quarterly to monthly rental periods, but the rental periods in the tenancy could be changed only by agreement under section 13(5). Without agreement, the increased rent remained payable quarterly. The monthly figure could be converted by multiplication by three. The Tribunal regarded section 2 of the Apportionment Act 1870 as confirming that rents accrue from day to day.
5. The FTT’s initial decision was properly set aside because it had decided a jurisdictional point without giving the parties a fair opportunity to address it. Its later reasoning was inadequate because it relied on Mannai Investment Company Limited v Eagle Star Assurance [1997] UKHL without explaining precisely how that approach resolved the issue. The Upper Tribunal reached the same conclusion on the statutory analysis without needing to rely on Mannai Investment Company Limited v Eagle Star Assurance.
6. Earlier defective or unsuccessful notices did not bar a later rent increase. Each notice had to be considered on its own merits.
7. It was in the interests of justice to determine the appeal without a further hearing. The tenant had notice, the permitted ground of appeal had been resolved, and a further hearing would cause disproportionate delay without a realistic prospect of a different outcome.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the appeal against the FTT’s corrected decision dated 3 June 2025.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): initially treated the notice as probably invalid; set that decision aside under rule 51 for procedural irregularity; then held the notice valid and determined a new rent of £1,150 per month, effective from 20 May 2025.