Application Reinstated After Prompt Response to Strikeout Notice
📌 In brief
In a tenancy dispute, an application was initially struck out because the required documents were not submitted on time. However, the application was later reinstated after the applicant quickly responded to the strikeout notice.
⚖️ Legal holding
An application may be reinstated if the applicant promptly responds to a notice to strike out the application.
📖 Technical summary
The application was initially struck out but reinstated due to the applicant's prompt response.
📜 Headnote Official document
In a tenancy dispute, an application was initially struck out due to the failure to submit a hearing bundle on time. However, the application was reinstated after the applicant promptly responded to the strikeout notice.
📚 Full judgment Official document
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER
(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
:
CHI/00HX/PHC/2022/0010
Property
:
[ADDRESS], Stratton St. Margaret, Swindon, Wiltshire [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
:
[COMPANY]
[EMAIL]
Respondent: [redacted]
:
Type of Application
:
Application for a determination of any question arising under the Mobile Homes act 1983
Tribunal Member(s)
:
Judge D [NAME] of Notice
:
30 November 2022
DECISION
This is a formal order of the Tribunal which must be complied with by the parties.
1. The Applicant seeks a determination of a question from the Tribunal arising under the Mobile Homes act 1983, as outlined in part 5 of the application form. The question relates to whether the Respondent is in breach of the terms of his agreement as he has erected three wooden sheds on his pitch and is storing building materials which the Applicant asserts relates to him running a business from his park home.
2. Directions were made on 10 October 2022 setting out a timetable for the exchange of documents between the parties and the preparation of a hearing bundle which was due for submission on 14 November 2022.
3. Paragraph 18 of the said Directions informed the Applicant that if the bundle was not submitted on the requested date, the case would be struck out.
4. No bundle was received by the Tribunal on 14 November 2022 and so on 23 November 2022 the application was struck out.
5. On 25 November 2022 the Applicant wrote to the Tribunal stating,
We apologise for not previously filing a copy of the hearing bundle for the application relating to pitch [ADDRESS] (CHI/00HX/PHC/2022/0010) by 14 November 2022. This was unfortunately overlooked due to the three other linked applications (0009/011 and 012) being consolidated, and the timetables for the other applications (including for the filing of the bundle) being extended.
Given that the Respondent in the present application (Mr [RESPONDENT]) has not responded to the application or submitted any evidence we remain happy for the Tribunal to determine this application on the basis of the papers already submitted, and we therefore attach the bundle in accordance with the directions dated 10 October 2022, together with an application under Rule 9(5) of the Tribunal procedure Rules.
6. The Tribunal has received no objections from the Respondent in connection with this application.
Decision
7. This case is one of four applications involving a number of parties with different representatives and for whom there have been directions issued that relate to some but not all of the properties in question. The Tribunal recognises that this is a complicated matter. In addition, the Applicant responded promptly to the previous Notice to strike out the Application. The Tribunal therefore agrees to reinstate this application in accordance with Rule 9(5) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules.
8. The application will now be reviewed as to its suitability to still be determined on the papers and directions will be issued shortly.
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.
2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.
3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.
4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Refusal Order Blocks Mobile Home Sale Due to Pet Violation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Residents' Association Recognised as QRA by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Conditional Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety …
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Works Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Repairs Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission for Urgent Repairs Without Full Consultation
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The application was allowed when there was an emergency situation.
- Dispensation from statutory consultation requirements was granted when the works were urgent and necessary.
- The application was successful when the claimant met the specific criteria outlined in relevant legislation.
- Applications were allowed when there was unanimous agreement among the affected parties.
- The application was successful when it related to recognizing a tenants' or residents' association as qualifying under specific legal definitions.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The application was dismissed when the claimant did not meet the strict criteria required by the legislation.
- The application was unsuccessful when the claimant failed to qualify as a recognized entity under the relevant act.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The application was initially struck out but was later reinstated.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the property owner were involved in a tenancy dispute.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to reinstate the application because the applicant responded promptly to the strikeout notice.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Rule 9(5) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the prompt response to the strikeout notice.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should respond promptly to any notices to avoid having their application struck out.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The prompt response to the strikeout notice was the key document.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions like this can typically be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.
