![[2024] UKUT 41 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
The grounds of appeal
The grounds of appeal
Peabody was given permission to appeal on three grounds, each of which is related in one way or another to procedural fairness:
First it is said that Catalyst was denied the opportunity to address a point identified by the FTT, namely the amount of the “managing agent charge” (as it is referred to in the grounds of appeal).
Secondly, Peabody complains that the FTT based its decision on evidence which was not put to the parties for them to comment on.
Finally, it is said that the FTT failed to give adequate reasons for its decision to reduce the amount of the management charge.
- 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