Introduction
Introduction
This is an appeal from the refusal of the First-tier Tribunal (“the FTT”) to grant the appellant landlord a dispensation from the statutory requirement to consult its tenants prior to carrying out major works.
The appellant was represented in the appeal by Mr Charles Auld and Ms Kayleigh Bloomfield, both of counsel; Ms Bloomfield appeared for the appellant in the FTT. I am grateful to them both. The respondents have been represented throughout by Mr Jonathan Waites; he wrote to the Upper Tribunal two days before the hearing to say that he was prevented by ill-health from attending. He did not request an adjournment.
With his email to the Tribunal Mr Waites enclosed a witness statement in which he alleges criminal conduct including fraud, theft and conspiracy against over a dozen individuals, states that the appellant has acquired the property by fraud, and suggests that the building should be demolished. The respondents do not have permission to adduce witness evidence in the appeal. The statement might be treated instead as a skeleton argument; however, it contains nothing relevant to the issues in the appeal and I make no further reference to it.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The legal background
- The factual background and the proceedings in the FTT
- The proceedings in the FTT
- The appeal
- (1): The FTT was wrong to hold that a landlord whose title has not been registered cannot enter and do works on the property without the legal owner’s permission
- 5(1) Did the appellant give a proper explanation of the extent and cost of the works?
- 5(2) Was there satisfactory evidence of completion of the works?
- 5(3) Was the FTT wrong to dismiss the report and schedule of works of Mr Payne?
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 56 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)