[2025] UKUT 122 (LC)

Section 9 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 ("the 2007 Act") provides:

Section 9(3) (not set out above) provides that tribunal procedure rules may restrict the power to review, and rule 55 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 ("the tribunal rules") provides:

The statutory power conferred by section 9(1) of the 2007 Act is for the FTT to review a decision "on a matter in a case"; likewise in section 9(5) it is said that the FTT must re-decide “the matter” or refer it to the Upper Tribunal. In Point West at paragraph 35 the Court of Appeal said:

“35.

Where the FTT undertakes a review of one of its own decisions, it must make it clear which parts (if any) of that decision it is prepared to review and, following the carrying out of the review, which parts (if any) of that decision it intends to set aside.”

Accordingly the power to review must be exercised in relation to one or more specific matters in a decision. The question the FTT has to ask itself in considering the grounds of appeal is whether an appeal is likely to succeed, and if it is satisfied about that it can review its decision by correcting errors, amending reasons, or setting the decision aside (sub-section (4)). A hearing will rarely be needed; if the FTT takes the view that something may have gone wrong but that it needs to conduct a hearing in order to determine whether or not it has, alarm bells should ring. In such a case the answer is not to review the decision, because the condition in rule 55(1)(b) is not satisfied, but to grant permission to appeal on the basis that the appellant has an arguable ground of appeal.

So much for the legal basis of review. I noted in paragraph 3 above the legal background to the respondents’ application to the FTT, namely the power conferred by the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to make a rent repayment order against a landlord who has committed certain offences, including the offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 of managing an HMO which required a licence and did not have one. I do not need to go into that legal background any further because it was not in issue in the appeal.