VadeLab
Struck OutFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Application Struck Out Due to Non-Compliance with Directions

Case No.

📌 In brief

In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (a person) dismissed an application because the claimant did not follow the tribunal's instructions. This resulted in the application being struck out.

⚖️ Legal holding

Failure to comply with tribunal directions can lead to the striking out of an application.

Topics

non-compliance with directionsstriking out applications

Provisions

Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013

📖 Technical summary

The claimant's application was struck out due to non-compliance with tribunal directions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) struck out an application under Rule 9(3)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, as the claimant failed to comply with tribunal directions.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Struck Out

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : BIR/00CR/HIN/2023/0031 Property : 56 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] Respondent : [redacted] Type of application : Application under paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 2004 to appeal against an improvement notice in respect of the subject property Tribunal members : Judge C Payne (Chair) [NAME] of decision : 23 August 2024

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

Summary The Tribunal determines that the Applicant’s application is struck out under Rule 9(3)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 as the Property does not constitute a dwelling house for the purposes of the Housing Act 1988.

Background 1. By an application received by the Tribunal on 20 July 2023, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal under paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 2004 (‘the 2004 Act’) to appeal against an improvement notice dated 30 June 2023 served by the Respondent under sections 11 and 12 of the 2004 Act in relation to Category 1 and Category 2 hazards at the Property.

2. Directions were issued on 20 September 2023 requiring the Respondent to make further submissions by 4 October 2023. These were provided. The Applicant was required, not later than 25 October 2023, provide to the Respondent and to the Tribunal an electronic bundle (paginated and indexed) of all documents relevant to the determination of the application.

3. The Applicant did not comply with the directions. On 15 November 2023, the Applicant wrote to the Respondent copying in the Tribunal. He stated, without providing any evidence, that he had been in hospital and asking for an unspecified extension to the deadline for producing submissions.

4. On 21 November 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the Applicant allowing until 28 November 2023 for the submission to be provided and warning that, if they were not made, the application would be struck out under Rule 9(3)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013. Nothing further was heard from the Applicant.

The Law 5. Rule 9(3)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013

9. (3) The Tribunal may strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings or case if— (a)the applicant has failed to comply with a direction which stated that failure by the applicant to comply with the direction could lead to the striking out of the proceedings or case or that part of it;

Decision 6. The Applicant was warned that failure to comply with the directions of the Tribunal would result in his Application being struck out. He failed to comply with the directions. Therefore, his Application is struck out.

Appeal 7. Any appeal against this decision must be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Prior to making such an appeal the party appealing must apply, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal within 28 days of the date of issue of this decision (or, if applicable, within 28 days of any decision on a review or application to set aside) identifying the decision to which the appeal relates, stating the grounds on which that party intends to rely in the appeal, and stating the result sought by the party making the application.

Judge C Payne Chair First-tier Tribunal ([NAME])

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The claimant's application was struck out.

Who was involved?

The claimant and the local council were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to strike out the application because the claimant did not comply with the tribunal's directions.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Rule 9(3)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The fact that the claimant did not comply with the tribunal's directions was the central reasoning.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was against the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure they comply with all tribunal directions to avoid having their application struck out.

What evidence or documents mattered?

No specific evidence or documents were mentioned as critical in the judgment.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.