[2025] UKUT 237 (LC)

A previous FTT determination of 23 October 2023 (which is publicly accessible on the FTT’s website) provides some relevant background information missing from the decision under appeal. The tenancy of the flat was granted by the landlords to the tenant on 30 June 2020. The original rent was increased to £1,575 and increased again by the FTT to £1,700 with effect from 30 July 2023. The rent determined by the FTT in 2023 took account of an improvement notice served by the local authority which required the landlords to remedy defective ventilation in the bathrooms and kitchen which had caused mould in the flat. The FTT said that it had reduced the rent by 15% to take account of the notice and other matters relied on by the tenant.

On 20 June 2024 Haart served a notice under section 13(2) of the 1988 Act which proposed a new rent of £2,300 to take effect from 30 July 2024. The notice was then referred to the FTT by the tenant on 8 July 2024.

I have inspected the FTT’s file from which I can see that the application submitted by the tenant named Haart as the “Landlord or Agent” and gave its postal address and two of its email addresses, including that of Mr Uzukov, who had signed the section 13 notice. He was also stated to be the landlords’ representative.

I should explain at this stage that section 3 of the FTT’s standard form of application, “Rents 1”, which is intended for use by tenants seeking a determination of a market rent following the receipt of a landlord’s notice under section 13 of the 1988 Act, requires the tenant to supply certain information, including the “Name and address of landlord or agent(s)” and a “representative name and address”. On the face of it, therefore, there was nothing inappropriate about the tenant’s application in this case. As requested, she identified the landlord’s agent, Haart, and gave the name of the member of staff at Haart who had signed the notice. She was not required to say whether the person she had named was the landlord or was the landlord’s agent, and she did not do so.

The tenant provided a copy of her tenancy agreement with her application, which showed that her landlords were the three appellants and referred to their UK address (I understand that two of them live in Malaysia). She also supplied a copy of the notice proposing the increase in rent which had been served by Haart on behalf of the landlords on 20 June 2024. The notice was given by Haart in its own name, identifying itself as the landlords’ agent, and did not name the landlords.

Although the FTT had the landlords’ name and address (from the tenancy agreement) it did not serve the proceedings on them at that address. On 23 August a copy of the application, together with procedural directions and a blank form of reply to be completed and returned, were provided instead to Haart at its address, marked for the attention of Mr Uzokov. The directions named the three landlords as parties to the application and it was clearly appreciated that they, and not Haart, were the respondents.

A reply form signed by Mr Uzokov and describing him as the Landlords’ managing agent was later sent to the FTT by Haart, accompanied by lettings information for properties on the market at that time. The reply stated that Mr Uzokov did not require a hearing or an inspection and provided no information about his availability for a hearing. On 24 October the FTT notified Mr Uzokov that a hearing of the application would take place on 14 November 2024.

The tenant attended the hearing on 14 November but Haart did not and nor did the landlords. In its subsequent decision the FTT recorded that evidence was given by the tenant about the condition of the flat and that she had asserted that the bathroom extractor was in disrepair, which caused mould in the living room and bedroom. The tenant also supplied photographs.

The FTT did not carry out its own inspection but accepted the tenant’s evidence about the condition of the flat (as it was entitled to do). It reduced the new rent by 15% as a discount to reflect the condition of the bathroom and the wider property, arriving at a figure of £1,870, which it decided should commence from 1 October 2024 rather than the date specified in the notice of increase.