The hearing before the FTT and its decision
21.All of the appellants except Mr Herring joined the remote video hearing on 14 September 2021 at which they were represented by Miss Sherratt. By that time Mr Jahanghir had died and his estate was represented by Mr Wand. 22.Ms Sherratt had taken instructions from the appellants for the first time on the previous day and she had been made aware that Mr Herring and Miss Cooke had each sublet their rooms in the house for six months. She explained this to the FTT at the start of the hearing. She also explained for the first time that each of the appellants had paid a different amount for their room and that their contributions towards the rent had not been equal. She asked either that she be given permission to submit a revised schedule of rent after the conclusion of the hearing identifying what had been paid by whom and for what periods or that the hearing be adjourned to enable further evidence to be prepared.23.Mr Wand, who appeared on behalf of the respondent objected to Ms Sherratt’s proposals and the FTT refused to permit the appellants to adduce further evidence or to adjourn the hearing. In its subsequent decision it explained its reasoning as follows:“The tribunal carefully considered the application to adduce further evidence and/or an adjournment. In doing so the tribunal considered the overriding objective and the issues raised by admissions made by the applicants and the application to rely on further fundamental evidence that went to the substance of the application. Although the tribunal frequently exercises a degree of leniency to parties in respect of their compliance with directions, particularly where a party appears unrepresented, the tribunal determined that in this application these matters should and could have been addressed at a much earlier stage by the applicants as they went to the substance of their application. The tribunal determined in the absence of any or any compelling reason as to why this evidence could not have been provided earlier, that prejudice was caused to the respondent and to the tribunal’s proper management of its resources. Therefore, the application to adduce further evidence and/or to adjourn was refused.”24.Ms Sherratt then applied to call two of the appellants to give oral evidence about the subletting of rooms and rent payments. The FTT refused that application and later gave this explanation:“None of the applicants had complied with the tribunal’s direction by making any witness statement on which they could rely as their evidence in chief. As the evidence on which the respondent would wish to cross-examine went to the substance of whether and when an offence was being committed, the tribunal considered it unfair and prejudicial to the respondent to allow the applicant to rely on oral witness evidence in the absence of any witness statement and about which the parties had been warned in the tribunal’s directions. The tribunal also considered that although the tribunal has a wide discretion when considering to admit evidence, it was nevertheless mindful of the fact that the applicants asserted that the respondent had allegedly committed a criminal offence, for which ramifications could be both wide-reaching and substantial. Therefore, the tribunal did not permit the applicants to give oral evidence to the tribunal as no witness statements were available to the respondents on which they could be cross-examined.”25.Mr Wand then invited the FTT to dismiss the application. He submitted that material included in the appellants’ statement of case “was not evidence” and in any event the appellants had already accepted that parts of it were untrue. For her part, Ms Sherratt invited the FTT to proceed on the basis of the documentary evidence and asked to be allowed to rely on the appellants’ statement of case. The FTT refused that request. In its subsequent written decision it explained:“The tribunal determines that in the absence of any witness evidence, which could be relied upon as evidence in chief, the applicants have failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that an offence was committed by the respondent. The tribunal also determines that in the absence of such evidence from the applicants, the respondent is not required to give evidence, which may or may not be used by the applicants to “prove their case”. Therefore, the tribunal dismisses the applicants’ case.”26.In a subsequent decision on costs the FTT directed that the appellants should pay the respondent £1,000 plus VAT on the grounds that their conduct of the application had been unreasonable. In particular, they had failed to serve witness statements making necessary corrections to their application. The FTT also ordered that Justice for Tenants should pay £1600 plus VAT as a contribution towards the respondent’s costs.