[2024] UKUT 314 (LC)

In her application for permission to appeal Ms Atesheva challenged the FTT’s determination that it did not have jurisdiction by referring to the facts and asserting that the delay in submitting her application in the prescribed form was not her fault. At that stage she was without professional representation, and I read her grounds of appeal as a broad challenge to the FTT’s conclusion that it could not determine her application.

The point which I identified as raising an arguable ground of appeal was whether Ms Atesheva’s e-mail to the FTT on 31 December 2023 (whether alone or together with her e-mail of 22 January 2024) was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the FTT to determine the rent payable under her tenancy. On consideration, that issue divides into two separate questions. The first is whether the information supplied by Ms Atesheva in her e-mail of 31 December was substantially to the same effect as the information required by prescribed Form No. 6, such that the application was valid on its face. The second is whether, assuming the e-mail of 31 December was not substantially to the same effect as Form No. 6, the consequence was that the FTT could not determine the new rent.

Before considering either of those questions, I begin with a preliminary matter.