20 Birkhall Close, Chatham ME5 7QD
HAV/00LC/MNR/2026/0082 · Medway · decided 4 Jul 2026
rules unclearfigures not yet checkedThe tribunal did not set a rent in this decision (for example, the application was withdrawn or struck out, or this is a later ruling on an earlier decision). See the original for details.
| Rent before the notice | £875.33 |
|---|---|
| Rent the landlord proposed | £996.67 |
| Date of the landlord's notice | not stated |
| Rules | Not clear from the decision. |
| Property | not stated |
Rents per calendar month as the tribunal recorded them (weekly rents × 52 ÷ 12). Read from the PDF automatically; these figures haven't been checked yet and are left out of the statistics, so compare them with the original.
From the tribunal's valuation
The Tribunal determines that the purported notices were not valid as they do not comply with the requirements of the prescribed form and the purported notices are not substantially to the same effect for the following reasons: a) The first purported notice proposes a starting date for the new rent of 1st January 2026. That date is not the start of a period of the tenancy. b) The first purported notice was not signed or dated. c) The Landlord appears to have accepted that the first notice was invalid and/or waived their right to rely on the first form by serving a second purported notice with a start date for the new rent of 23rd March 2026. d) The second purported notice was not signed or dated. e) The prescribed form requires that the Landlord, or somebody acting on their behalf, must sign and date the form.
An extract. To keep people's names out, any sentence that might contain one is left out (marked …). The full reasons are in the original decision.
The original
Past decisions are not a prediction. Each tribunal decides on the evidence in front of it.