[2024] UKUT 00276 (LC)

The appellant has permission to appeal on the ground that the property did not have a valid Electrical Installation Condition Report, because the landlord had done work on the bathroom himself and left the electrical installations in a dangerous state (with sockets incorrectly wired) which a visiting electrician would not touch. He produced a report dated 13 March 2024 from OVO energy confirming that that was the position when their engineer visited on 13 September 2022.

The appellant says that the FTT in assessing the market rent failed to take into account the dangerous condition of the electrical installations as a result of the landlord’s work.

Certainly there is no mention of that in the FTT’s decision, and it is not in dispute that the letter of 13 March 2024 was produced to the FTT. Nor did the FTT address the point when refusing permission to appeal.

The respondents in their statement of case in the appeal point to the date on the letter – some 18 months after the engineer’s visit. They have produced now an email from an officer of the local housing authority dated 15 July 2024 stating that the electrical problem had been resolved – but of course that was some time after the FTT’s decision. It seems there may be a dispute of fact about whether the Mr Hopkins actually did the work himself, but the letter from the local housing authority does appear to acknowledge that there was a problem which has now been solved.

This Tribunal on an appeal of this nature cannot make findings of fact. What does seem clear is that the appellant did tell the FTT about the electrical problem, and that the FTT neither took that into account in its determination of market rent nor explained why it had not done so. I do not think it is plausible to suppose that the point was covered by “general disrepair”, which is not apt to describe an electrical hazard.

Accordingly the FTT’s decision is set aside; either it failed to take into account a material consideration in the determination of the market rent, or it failed to explain what it made of that consideration.