[2025] UKUT 151 (LC)

In the grounds of appeal Mr Szymczak alleged that Mrs Entwhistle forged her copy of Menna Elwakeil’s tenancy agreement. I have set out the grant of permission to appeal in full at paragraph 15 above in order to make it clear that permission to appeal was not granted on this ground. Nevertheless, because much was made of that allegation at the hearing before the Tribunal I make the following comments about it.

There was a copy of that copy agreement in the appeal bundle; it purports to be an agreement for a lodger, for three days per week, with a resident landlord; it bore the printed date 21 September 2021 and appears to have been signed by the landlord but not the tenant.

Mr Szymczak said that Mrs Entwhistle disconnected from the FTT hearing (which she was attending remotely, while he attended in person at Havant). He then took a break to go to the bathroom. The FTT referred in its decision to her having produced the agreement with Menna, and he inferred that the agreement had been emailed to the FTT during the hearing while he was taking a break, so that he had no opportunity to comment on it. On checking the meta-data for the document he noted that it had been created on 23 July 2024 and he inferred that it had been forged; he also said that the details in the document – a low rent, reference to a resident landlord, and the fact that Mrs Entwhistle had signed it on behalf of the landlord which he said was not her usual practice – showed that it was not genuine.

Mrs Entwhistle explained that she sent the copy agreement to the FTT by email just after the end of the hearing, having converted it from a Word document to a pdf. There is a copy of that email in the appeal bundle; it was sent to the FTT and not to Mr Szymczak at 12:24 on 23 July 2024. I am told the hearing was a short one. Two days later, on 25 July 2024, Mrs Entwhistle sent a further email to the FTT in which she said “I was confused, I sent you the wrong short term agreements, these 2 agreements demonstrate that the house was let to 2 short term lets as at the 30/10/2022.” Attached were the agreements with David Cadet and David Ellisdon.

I observe that if Mrs Entwhistle converted the document from Word to pdf that would explain why the document appeared to have been created on 23 July 2024. There is no compelling evidence that it was fabricated. The withdrawal of the document from the FTT was not admission that it was fabricated. Mrs Entwhistle said at the appeal hearing that it was not a genuine document, but I do not take that as an admission of wrongdoing; it is consistent for example with her having produced, in error, an agreement that was never completed.

Whether or not that document was fabricated, the important facts about it are, first, that Mr Szymczak had no opportunity to comment on it (whether it was sent during or after the hearing, as to which I make no finding) and, second, that it was withdrawn. If the FTT’s decision had depended upon a finding that the document was genuine then the decision would certainly have been made in error, not because there was anything obviously wrong with it but because Mr Szymzcak had not seen it and because it was in any event withdrawn and therefore not relied upon by Mrs Entwhistle. But the FTT made no finding about whether or not the document was genuine. It mentioned the document in a paragraph explaining the disagreement between the parties but was, I think, careful not to make a finding about it. What it said after its discussion of the evidence was that it had doubts about Mrs Entwhistle’s credibility but that Mr Szymczak had not proved his case.

As I said above, permission to appeal was not granted on the basis of the allegation of forgery. I have commented upon it only because it was a major focus for both parties at the appeal hearing, and it is important to say that the forgery allegation is not convincing. The agreement should arguably have been ignored by the FTT because it was withdrawn, but that casts no doubt upon the correctness of the FTT’s decision because the decision depended not upon evidence produced by the landlord but upon the absence of evidence from Mr Szymczak.