[2024] UKUT 314 (LC)

Ms Atesheva has been tenant of 34C Vicarage Road since February 2017. She was granted successive assured shorthold tenancies in 2017 and 2018 by a Mr John Jacob, but her most recent tenancy, for a term of six months commencing on 1 March 2020, identified Halifax as her landlord. The monthly rent under that tenancy was £1,900 payable on the first day of each month.

On 20 December 2023 Halifax gave Ms Atesheva notice in the prescribed form under section 13(2), 1988 Act proposing a new rent of £2,400 a month to commence on 1 February 2024.

The prescribed form of notice which Ms Atesheva received (Form No. 4 in the Schedule to the 2015 Regulations), includes guidance notes telling the recipient that if they do not accept the proposed increase, they may refer the notice to the FTT and must do so using the prescribed form, Form No. 6, which they can obtain from the FTT or a legal stationer.

On 31 December 2023 Ms Atesheva contacted the FTT by e-mail. The FTT subsequently referred to this e-mail in its decision but did not consider what it said. The e-mail said this:

“Dear First-tier Tribunal,

I hope this letter finds you well. My name is Zdravka Atesheva, and I am writing to seek your assistance in reviewing the recent notice from my letting agency regarding a significant increase in rent, effective from February 1, 2024.

I have been a tenant at 34c Vicarage Grove, SE5 7LY, since February 1, 2017. Over the course of my seven-year tenancy, I have faced numerous challenges with the property, including issues with water leakage, mould, faulty appliances, and structural problems. Despite my consistent efforts to communicate these concerns to both the landlord and the property management agency, the necessary repairs have been delayed or left unresolved.

Recently, my letting agency, Halifax Management Ltd, issued a notice proposing a rent increase from £1,900 to £2,400 starting from February 1, 2024. I find this increase to be unjustified given the current condition of the property. Moreover, I believe it raises concerns of potential retaliation for my efforts in prompting much-needed repairs.

[Further details of the condition of the property, Ms Atesheva’s state of health and her record of rent payment were then provided]

I am appealing to the First-tier Tribunal to conduct a fair review of the rent increase, taking into consideration the long-standing issues with the property, the recent repairs, and my current health condition. I am more than willing to provide medical records and any additional documentation to support my case.

I kindly request your assistance in ensuring a just and reasonable resolution to this matter. I believe that a fair evaluation will lead to a more reasonable rent adjustment, considering the property’s condition and my circumstances.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.”

In response to her e-mail Ms Atesheva received an immediate automated reply informing her that the FTT aimed to respond to e-mails within 10 working days and asking for her co-operation in refraining from contacting it during that period. Amongst a number of informative messages at the foot of the automated reply was a link to the FTT’s website at which it was said copies of tribunal forms and further information were available. Someone who assumed that the prescribed Form No. 6 referred to in the notice of increase was a “tribunal form” and who searched carefully through several layers of the website would eventually come to a form designated “Rents 1” which is a version of the correct form with some supplemental information.

Ms Atesheva respected the FTT’s request not to contact it and waited until 22 January before following up her original message with a second e-mail expressing concern that she had not yet received a proper response as the proposed rent increase was due to take effect on 1 February. She asked whether she should send it again or wait and concluded with: “Please tell me what I should do in this case”.

By return of e-mail Ms Atesheva received a further automated response informing her that the FTT was running a five week backlog due to high volumes of work and staff shortages, apologising for the delay and stating that the tribunal would contact her shortly with details of the next steps. That email did not include a link to the website or indicate that tribunal forms could be downloaded from it.

Ms Atesheva says that she then contacted the FTT by telephone but again received only an automated response.

A tribunal case officer finally responded to Ms Atesheva’s enquiries on 7 February 2024 directing her to the prescribed form. Later the same day Ms Atesheva submitted her application using that form.

After preliminary consideration the FTT notified both parties that the application form had been received after the date on which the proposed rent increase was due to take effect and requested their comments. Neither party responded to that request.