UT/2023/000063 - [2024] UKUT 00307 (TCC)

We can deal briefly with the secondary argument raised by Mr Firth. This was that, on the assumption that the FTT did not err by applying a test of whether the issues requiring action in relation to the Property were “fundamental”, the FTT’s conclusion was, nevertheless, not reasonably available to it on the facts.

There are two aspects to this argument.

First, as Mr Firth put it in his skeleton argument, “it was necessary to take all of the issues with the Property together rather than to consider and categorise each one individually (as the FTT erred in doing at FTT[54])”.

We set out FTT[54] at paragraph 19 above. All that the FTT was doing at FTT[54] was to group the various issues which had been identified for analytical purposes into different categories, to show more clearly the detail of its reasoning at that stage. Far from indicating that the FTT failed to take the relevant issues collectively, this helpful approach showed what the FTT thought about the various types of issue in relation to their significance in determining whether the Propery was suitable for use as a dwelling. Mr Firth’s submission finds no support at FTT[54] or elsewhere in the Decision.

Second, we understood Mr Firth to argue that, in applying a test of fundamentality, the FTT’s conclusion was irrational or perverse in an Edwards v Bairstow sense. We reject that submission. The FTT stated at FTT[54] that the works which were needed did not “come anywhere near the threshold” of rendering the Property unsuitable for use as a dwelling. The FTT’s conclusion took into account a variety of factors and findings of fact, and was in our view reasonably open to it on all the facts.

As the FTT decided, the closure notice was correct. The appeal is dismissed.