[2024] UKUT 375 (LC)

Mr Mullin made submissions in support of a single proposition that the FTT had not been entitled to determine the applications concerning the unrepresented residents on the basis of its own observations during the site inspection and the evidence adduced by the represented respondents.

Although Mr Mullin described the nine residents who are respondents to this appeal as “unrepresented”, the fact that they were not represented at the hearing and did not attend is less significant than the fact that they did not respond to the applications at all. It is not at all uncommon for the FTT to have to determine pitch fee review applications to which there has been no response, and the proper approach to such applications raises an important point of principle about the nature of the proceedings. Was the FTT right to say that it was not a “rubber stamp” in those circumstances, or is the appellant right that it is for a resident who objects to a proposed increase to make a positive case sufficient to persuade the FTT that the statutory presumption of an RPI increase has been displaced?

Although the appellant’s submissions were woven together under one heading it is more convenient to consider the point I have just identified as a discrete issue before addressing the more general point about the use which may be made by the FTT of evidence adduced in one application when it is determining another application heard concurrently.