Application Struck Out for Non-Compliance with Tribunal Directions
📌 In brief
An application for dispensation from consultation requirements was struck out by the First-tier Tribunal because the applicant did not follow the directions given by the tribunal.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord must comply with tribunal directions to avoid having their application struck out.
📖 Technical summary
Application for dispensation from consultation requirements was struck out due to non-compliance with tribunal directions.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal struck out an application for dispensation from consultation requirements after the applicant failed to comply with tribunal directions.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
:
CHI/00HP/LDC/2023/0074
Property
:
The Pinnacle, [APPELLANT], Sandbanks, Poole, Dorset, [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
:
[APPELLANT]
Respondent: [redacted]
:
Type of Application
:
To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Tribunal Member
:
[NAME] of Notice
:
18 September 2023
NOTICE STRIKING OUT AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 9(3)(a) OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL) (PROPERTY CHAMBER) RULES 2013
2 This is a formal order of the Tribunal which must be complied with by the parties.
The parties must comply with the Statement on Tribunal Rules and Procedure and the Guidance on PDF bundles which are enclosed with these directions (if not already provided).
Communications to the Tribunal MUST be made by email to [EMAIL]. All communications must clearly state the Case Number and address of the premises.
Background
1. The Applicant seeks dispensation under Section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements imposed on the landlord by Section 20 of the 1985 Act. The unsigned application was received on 5 July 2023.
2. Directions of the Tribunal were issued by a Legal Officer on 22 August 2023 requiring, amongst others, that the Applicant provide written authority appointing a representative to act on their behalf (paragraph 2); confirmation to be sent to the Tribunal by 30 August 2023 that a copy of the Directions including the statement of rules and procedures and guidance on pdf bundles, together with a copy of the application had been provided to each Respondent (paragraph 10); and confirmation to be sent to the Tribunal by 12 September of whether any reply forms have been received from the Respondents (paragraph 15).
3. The Applicant has failed to comply with any of these requirements.
4. Paragraph 10 of the Directions stated, in bold, that where the Applicant fails to inform the Tribunal by the said date the application will be struck out without further notice.
5. In accordance with Rule 9(3)(a), that being a failure to comply with a Tribunal Direction, the application is hereby struck out.
RIGHTS TO REINSTATEMENT
The Applicant may apply for reinstatement of the application under Rule 9(5) of the Tribunal’s Procedural Rules. The application must be received within 28 days of the date of this Notice (Rule 9(6)).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Strikes Out Appeal for Late Submission
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Application to Vary Lease Struck Out by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Lacks Jurisdiction on Rent Increase Case
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Application Struck Out: Claimant Fails to Meet Jurisdiction Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal strikes out case due to lack of jurisdiction over fixed…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant’s Service Charge Claim Struck Out for Lack of Jurisdiction
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Re-Litigation of Service Charges Struck Out by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Consent Order Withdraws Application to Vary Remediation Order
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Application for lease extension struck out for being late
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
- A landlord may obtain dispensation from consulting lessees about major works if certain conditions are met.
- A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if it is reasonable to do so, even if the works were not initially covered by the consultation. (Allowed in Part)
- Where urgent repairs are required and consultation cannot be completed in time, a landlord may be granted dispensation from consultation requirements under Section
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A tenant cannot seek determination of liability and reasonableness of service charges without a demand for payment having been made by the landlord.
- A tenant is entitled to seek variation of a lease under section 35 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 if there is a reasonable prospect of success.
- The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a rent increase complies with the tenancy agreement's provisions.
- An applicant must submit an application for a lease extension within six months of receiving a counter-notice.
- The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the payability of fixed service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
- An applicant must submit an appeal within 21 days of receiving the notice.
- Parties may seek to vary a remediation order under the Building Safety Act 2022 through a consent order.
- A tenant cannot re-litigate matters that have already been decided against them in a previous court proceeding.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The application was struck out because the applicant did not comply with the tribunal's directions.
Who was involved?
The landlord and leaseholders were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to strike out the application because the landlord failed to comply with the directions set by the tribunal.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the failure to comply with the tribunal's directions.
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 directions given by the tribunal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
No specific evidence or documents are mentioned as critical in this judgment.
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 seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.
