Salvation Army Housing Association v Philip Kelleway
[2024] UKUT 53 (LC)
Zdravka Ivanova Atesheva v Halifax Management Ltd
4 October 2024
[2024] UKUT 314 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A tenant challenged a rent increase but used an email instead of the official form. The court decided the email was good enough because it gave all the important information and was sent on time. The important thing is that the landlord was notified and there is no unfairness.
Key Facts
- •Ms. Atesheva, an assured shorthold tenant, challenged a rent increase proposed by her landlord, Halifax Management Ltd.
- •She submitted her challenge via email, not using the prescribed Form No. 6.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) struck out her application, claiming lack of jurisdiction because the application wasn't in the prescribed form and wasn't submitted before the rent increase's effective date.
- •Ms. Atesheva appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Legal Principles
Jurisdiction to determine questions under the Housing Act 1988 is divided between the County Court and the FTT. The FTT's jurisdiction is to determine an appropriate rent, not the validity of notices or applications.
Mooney v Whiteland [2023] EWCA Civ 67
An application under section 13(4), Housing Act 1988, can be valid if it's 'substantially to the same effect' as the prescribed form (Form No. 6). The focus is on the information conveyed, not the presentation.
Regulation 2 of the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015
In determining whether a form is 'substantially to the same effect,' the comparison focuses on whether the words used mean substantially the same as the prescribed form. The recipient's understanding is irrelevant.
Sun Alliance & London Assurance Co Ltd v Hayman [1975] 1 WLR 177
When assessing non-compliance with statutory procedures, consider the statute's purpose and whether the legislature intended non-compliance to invalidate the process. Evaluate prejudice or injustice caused by affirming the process despite the breach.
A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 27
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
While Ms. Atesheva's email wasn't in the prescribed form, it was submitted within the deadline and contained enough information to allow the FTT to determine the rent. The lack of a prescribed form didn't strip the FTT of jurisdiction, given the purpose of section 13(4) is dispute resolution and access to justice. The landlord suffered no prejudice.