Heading

Case No: LC-2023-530
AN APPEAL FROM THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (PROPERTY CHAMBER)
FTT REF: LON/0022AJ/MNR/2022/0030
Royal Courts of Justice,
London WC2A
19 February 2024
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
LANDLORD AND TENANT – RENT DETERMINATION – assured tenancy – FTT restricting rent referable to fixed service charge – reliance on own general knowledge of management charges – whether procedurally unfair – s.14, Housing Act 1988 – appeal dismissed
BETWEEN:
PEABODY TRUST
Appellant
-and-
MISS CAROLE WELSTEAD
Respondent
Flat 62 Apsley House,
Dickens Yard,
Longfield Avenue,
London W5
Martin Rodger KC, Deputy Chamber President
13 February 2024
Victoria Osler, instructed by Devonshires, Solicitors, for the appellant
The respondent represented herself
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
Al Rawi v Security Service [2010] 3 WLR 1069
Arrowdell Ltd v Coniston Court (North) Hove Ltd [2006] EWLands LRA/72/2005 (31 October 2006)
Middleton v Karbon Homes Ltd [2023] UKUT 206 (LC)
Zermalt Holdings SA v Nu-Life Upholstery Repairs Ltd [1985] 2 E.G.L.R. 14
- Heading
- Introduction
- The facts
- Rent increases under assured periodic tenancies
- The notice of increase
- The FTT proceedings
- The grounds of appeal
- Issue 1: Was the FTT’s decision unfair because Catalyst had insufficient notice of the case it needed to meet?
- Issue 2: Was the FTT’s decision unfair because it relied on evidence which was not exposed to the parties for comment?
- Issue 3: Did the FTT fail to give adequate reasons for its decision?
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 41 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)