In Perotti v Amboh Properties Ltd [2025], the Upper Tribunal have confirmed that a section 13 notice which refers to an existing quarterly rental period as monthly, putting forward a monthly rent, remains valid, as long as it gives the requisite notice period for the revised rent to come into effect.
Mr Perotti is an assured tenant of a residential property; his status was acquired, as a second succession to the tenancy, following his mother's death, under Part 1 of the Housing Act 1988.
In May 2024, Mr Perotti's Landlord, Amboh Properties, served a notice under s13 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA), to increase the rent from £1,124.50 per quarter to £1,750 per month. Prior to this, Amboh had served an invalid notice in 2020 to increase the rent and the Tribunal had previously held that they did not have jurisdiction to determine the rent as the notice was invalid.
Mr Perotti referred the May 2024 s13 notice to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), seeking to challenge its validity and, in any event, the determination of the rent under section 14 of the HA. In its first decision, dated 4 November 2024, due to the timing of the rent payment being amended from quarterly to monthly, the FTT determined that the notice was not valid. The FTT went on to determine the rent, in the event that it was wrong as to the invalidity of the notice. The rent was determined as £1,375 per calendar month.
Amboh Properties applied to the FTT for permission to appeal. By a decision dated 20 January 2025, the FTT set aside its first decision determining that it did not have jurisdiction to consider whether the 2024 s13 notice was invalid. In a series of subsequent decisions, the FTT determined that the new rent should be £1,150 per month based on the evidence submitted by the Landlord.
Mr Perotti appealed this decision based on the FTT failing to give adequate reasons as to why they had jurisdiction to determine a new rent.
Martin Rodger KC addressed two main issues during the appeal.
Firstly, in the FTT's first decision it deemed the notice to '"probably" be invalid, the Upper Tribunal held that this reiterates the decision in Mooney v Whiteland [2023] that the FTT does not have jurisdiction to determine validity of a s.13 notice "so as to bind the parties". This meant that Amboh Properties was not prevented from seeking a binding determination from the County Court as to the validity of the notice.
The second issue addressed was whether landlords can amend a rental period via a s13 notice. Section 13(5) of the HA states the parties have a right to vary "by agreement" any terms of the tenancy, including rent. Therefore, Amboh Properties could not have been prevented from proposing the change in rental period through the notice itself, provided that the proposal is clear. Any proposed change in the rental period would remain subject to agreement by the tenant.
All that section 13(2) requires is that the notice must propose an increase "to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy specified in the notice". The 2024 s.13 notice satisfied that requirement. The FTT was therefore entitled to set aside its first decision.
Ultimately, the Upper Tribunal reached the same conclusions as the FTT, but for different reasons. The appeal was dismissed on 16 December 2025, and it was determined that the rent agreed in the final decision by the FTT, of £1,150 per month, was to be the new rent. However, as the FTT does not have the power to amend the rental periods, and as the tenant had not agreed to the proposed revision, the rent would be £3,450 per quarter commencing from 20 May 2025, with the new rent taking effect from 24 June 2025.
The effect is that even if a section 13 notice specifies a rental period different to that specified in the tenancy, provided that the notice proposes an increase to take effect at the beginning of a new rental period, then the proposed increase in rent will take effect, subject to any determination sought, even if the change in rental period is not agreed by the tenant.
