Heading

Case No: LC-2024-363
AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (PROPERTY CHAMBER)
FTT Ref: HS/LON/OOBE/MNR/2024/0034
4 October 2024
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
LANDLORD AND TENANT – RENT DETERMINATION – tenant’s application to FTT under s.13(4), Housing Act 1988 by e-mail not in the prescribed form – whether email substantially to the same effect as prescribed form – whether defective application capable of giving FTT jurisdiction to determine new rent – appeal allowed
BETWEEN:
ZDRAVKA IVANOVA ATESHEVA
Appellant
-and-
HALIFAX MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Respondent
34C Vicarage Grove, London SE5
Determination on written representations
Martin Rodger KC,
Deputy Chamber President
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 27
Elim Court RTM Company Ltd v Avon Freeholds Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 89; [2018] QB 571]
Johnson v Richmond Housing Partnership Ltd [2022] UKUT 80 (LC)
Mooney v Whiteland [2023] EWCA Civ 67
Natt v Osman [2013] EWCA Civ 584
R v Soneji [2005] UKHL 49; [2006] 1 AC 340
Robertson v Webb [2018] UKUT 235 (LC)
Sabella Ltd v Montgomery [1998] 1 EGLR 65
Sun Alliance & London Assurance Co Ltd v Hayman [1975] 1 WLR 177
Tadema Holdings v Ferguson [1999] EWCA Civ 3045; (2000) 32 HLR 866
Tegerdine v Brookes (1977) 36 P&CR 261
- Heading
- Introduction
- The relevant legislation
- The Facts
- The FTT’s decision
- The appeal
- Can the FTT rule on the validity of a section 13(4) application?
- Was the e-mail of 31 December 2023 substantially to the same effect as prescribed Form No. 6?
- Did the FTT have jurisdiction despite the reference not being in the prescribed form?
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 314 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)