UTLC LC-2023-250 - [2023] UKUT 289 (LC)

Mr and Mrs Date-Bah say that they were not given a fair hearing. There was insufficient time to give full instructions to Mr Mukulu and to produce evidence which would have been relevant, if not to the making of a rent repayment order at least to its quantum, because it related to the safety of the gas system which was a matter the FTT took into account in fixing the amount of the penalty. They also argue that the FTT should not have used the email address from an expired tenancy agreement.

They have also applied for permission to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, and have supplied material relevant to the safety and maintenance of the premises.

In response it is argued for Ms Radice that service by email was correct (but that is not in issue), and that new evidence should not be admitted because the criteria in Ladd v Marsahll [1954] EWCA Civ 1; the evidence could easily have been provided to the FTT had Mr and Mrs Date-Bah monitored their email address. In any event Ms Radice disputes the relevance of the material provided.