Salvation Army Housing Association v Philip Kelleway

Decision date: 21 February 2024

Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 53 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

The Upper Tribunal allowed the landlord's appeal against the First-tier Tribunal's reasoning and held the tenancy was a monthly assured periodic tenancy (having become non-shorthold after the starter period). The UT held that because the tenancy contained a contractual provision for rent increases the landlord was not limited by section 13(1)(b) and could follow the contractual rent-variation procedure; the FTT's decision to strike out the tenant's reference stands but for the correct legal reason. Permission to appeal had been properly sought.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

A tenancy which continues "from month to month" after an initial term is a monthly periodic tenancy rather than a single fixed-term month; and where an assured periodic tenancy contains a contractual provision for rent increases, section 13(1)(b) (which restricts contractual rent increases applying to statutory periodic tenancies) does not apply, so the landlord may rely on the contractual rent variation mechanism.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The notes record observations that clerical errors in pleadings or applications (such as a wrong postcode) do not necessarily invalidate an appeal or permission application, and that the FTT should not refuse permission to appeal merely because an appellant challenges the tribunal's reasoning rather than its outcome, since points of law arising from a decision are appealable.