[2025] UKUT 122 (LC)

The applicant sought permission to appeal on extensive grounds. He disagreed with all aspects of the FTT’s 2023 decision, including the finding that he was the landlord of the property. He complained that the FTT had raised matters about which the tenants had not complained. He asserted that the FTT was biassed. He said this:

“8.

We also assert that the hearing was unfair because the Tribunal allowed too much time to the Applicants to make their case repeatedly over 6 hours (from 10am to 4:50pm), and put the Respondent under undue suggestive verbal pressure on the respondent to make his case quickly and cut the presentation of his case short. …

9.

The case was originally listed for 3 hours, however all 4 applicants were allowed exhaustive time to make their case, for the most part repeating the same assertions between applicants and so entrenching repetition bias.

10.

The Respondent was allowed to question the first two applicants, although the time allowed to the cross examination was curtailed. However, by lunch break (and expiry of the allotted time) only two applicants had been heard. All of the afternoon was taken up by hearing the next two applicants. Under pressure of time, the Tribunal Chair denied the Respondent the right to question the last two applicants. The Tribunal Chair … told the Landlord that he need not make his points as she would read them later.

11.

The landlord finally got to make his statement as 4:50pm. [The judge] put undue time pressure on the landlord to be quick, that she had not placed on any of the applicants. She asked “how long will this take, Mr Campbell”. [The judge] repeated that she would “read the Respondent’s points”, which we find completely unacceptable.

12.

As a result of this undue pressure, the Respondent asserts that he failed to make key points.”

In response, the FTT gave directions on 1 June 2023 and said that it would review the 2023 decision because

“ …the tribunal has considered and taken into account the points now raised by the respondent. In particular, the tribunal considers that it was of the mistaken view that the Respondent had been given sufficient opportunity to state his case. It now appears that this was not the case and the tribunal’s original decision may therefore be incorrect or based on incorrect information.

3.

The tribunal considers that the applicant should make a response to the request for permission to appeal and the matter will then be considered afresh, by way of review. That review will be by way of a face to face hearing …”

That hearing took place on 8 May 2024 and the 2024 reviewed decision was issued on 22 July 2024. In that decision the FTT reiterated its finding that Mr Campbell was the landlord. It considered again the condition of the property and Mr Campbell’s financial circumstances, reproducing the text of the 2023 decision but adding material in light of Mr Campbell’s further submissions, and it decided that he should repay 60%, instead of 70%, of the rent after deductions.

In his application for permission to appeal the 2024 reviewed decision Mr Campbell challenged specific findings on the basis that despite the review hearing they remained unfair. In granting permission to appeal the Tribunal said this:

“The only decision which is open to appeal is the FTT’s reviewed decision of 22 July 2024, but the circumstances in which that decision came to be made appear to have been irregular, and the decision itself reads in places as the FTT’s dismissal of an appeal against its own previous conclusions (for example at paragraph 144 and in its greatly extended discussion of the condition of the property, room size, fire precautions etc in response to the applicant’s grounds of appeal). The FTT decided to review its original decision because it considered that an appeal was likely to succeed on the grounds that the initial hearing had been unfair as the applicant had been prevented from making submissions due to a shortage of time. In those circumstances those parts of the decision in which the FTT revisits and bolsters its original conclusions are at risk of being undermined by the same unfairness.”

In light of that, permission to appeal was given on two grounds; the first challenged the FTT’s decision that the appellant was the landlord of the property, and the second challenged the quantum of the rent repayment orders including the FTT’s findings about the condition of the property and the appellant’s financial circumstances. Permission to appeal was refused on a further ground, namely that the FTT should have found that the appellant had a reasonable excuse for not having an HMO licence on the basis that the appellant could not have been expected to know about the licensing requirement; the Tribunal took the view that there was no realistic prospect of success on that ground.