Moat Homes Limited v Michelle Carlo
Decision date: 11 December 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 415 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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
This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) had jurisdiction under sections 13–14 of the Housing Act 1988 to determine rent where an assured periodic tenancy contained a contractual rent-review clause allowing the landlord unilaterally to increase rent by notice. The Upper Tribunal held such contractual clauses fall within the section 13(1)(b) exception and therefore oust the FTT's jurisdiction; the FTT determinations in the three cases were set aside and the landlords' notified rents were restored.
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
Where an assured periodic tenancy contains a provision binding on the tenant under which the rent for a later period may be greater than for an earlier period, that provision falls within the exception in section 13(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1988 and excludes the operation of sections 13–14; consequently the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine a new rent in such cases. Serving the prescribed statutory notice does not of itself create or confer tribunal jurisdiction if the tenancy is within that contractual-review exception.
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 tribunal observed that the prescribed statutory form for proposing a rent increase is misleading where a tenancy contains a contractual rent-review clause, because its use can create false expectations of tribunal intervention; social housing providers ought to avoid using the prescribed form in such cases to prevent wasted resources and distress. (This guidance was not essential to the jurisdictional conclusion.)