[2024] UKUT 423 (LC)

Had I come to a different conclusion about either or both of the first two grounds of appeal, I would have had no hesitation in setting aside and re-making the FTT’s decision with the same outcome, exercising the discretion conferred by section 24(7) of the 1987 Act. It is abundantly clear both that the respondent proved that the property was in a very poor state as a result of the appellant’s poor management, and that it was just and convenient for an order to be made, and indeed there is no appeal against those two core conclusions by the FTT. The notice itself was not drafted in the way a lawyer would have done, but that is not a criticism; it made perfectly clear in the tenants’ own words what the problems were said to be and why the FTT was going to be asked to appoint a manager, and none of the material relied on was the slightest surprise to the appellant. If the notice did in any way fall short of what section 22 required it would have been entirely appropriate to make an order nonetheless.