First-tier Tribunal Strikes Out Tenant’s Application for Non-Compliance
📌 In brief
A tenant's case was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal because they did not follow the court’s instructions or show up for their scheduled hearing. This highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures when pursuing a claim.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must comply with the First-tier Tribunal's procedural requirements or risk having their case struck out.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's application was struck out for non-compliance with the tribunal's directions.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) struck out an application brought by a tenant under s.94(3) of the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002 for failure to comply with procedural directions and attend the hearing.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference : MAN/00CE/LUS/2025/0001
Property : 115 to [ADDRESS], Doncaster [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
Respondent Representative : [COUNSEL] of [RESPONDENT] of Application : Application for a determination of accrued uncommitted service charges, pursuant to -section 94(3) Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002
Tribunal : Judge R [NAME] [NAME] of Hearing : 10 June 2026
Date of Decision : 10 June 2026
DECISION:
The application is struck out.
REASONS:
1. The Applicant brings an application un der s94(3) Commonhold & leasehold Reform Act 2002.
2. On the 2 March 2026 the Tribunal issued directions for the resolution of this matter which included listing the matter for a hearing and requiring the Applicant to send to the Respondent and the Tribunal a statement of case within 21 days of the order.
3. The Applicant failed to send a statement of case to the Tribunal or the Respondent. 4. On the 26 May 2026, the Tribunal made a further order including a direction that:
“The Tribunal proposes to strike out the application received on 10th March 2025 unless the Applicant complies with paragraph 3 of the Tribunal’s directions within 14 days of the date this order is sent to the parties.”
5. The Applicant again failed to send a statement of case to the Tribunal or the Respondent.
6. At the hearing of the Tribunal today the Applicant did not attend nor were they represented.
7. The Respondent was represented by Ms [RESPONDENT] of [RESPONDENT] who previously managed the Property on behalf of the Respondent. Ms [RESPONDENT] told the Tribunal the Applicants had informed her they were going to discontinue the Application but as they had not done so she had attended.
8. Given the Applicants failure to comply with the order of 26 May 2026 or to attend the hearing the Tribunal determined to exercise its powers under Part 9(3)(a) The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013.
Judge R [NAME] 10 June 2026
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal rules on leaseholder's service charge obligations
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Tenant’s Rent Repayment Claim
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Dispensation Application in Westcliff Flats Cas…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rules on Service Charges and Management Agreements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal dismisses appeal on housing licence
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Tenant’s Service Charge Dispute
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Denied Bypass of Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Tenant’s Rent Repayment Claim
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Appeal Dismissed: Managing Agent Fined for Unlicensed HMO
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Challenge to Parking Penalty Charges Imposed on…
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 tenant's case was struck out due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.
- A tenant's application for market rent determination is struck out if there is a binding provision allowing rent increase.
- A tenant cannot refer a notice of rent increase to the tribunal if their agreement contains a provision for rent increases.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant's case was struck out by the First-tier Tribunal.
Who was involved?
A tenant and their landlord were involved in the dispute.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to strike out the application because the tenant failed to comply with procedural directions and attend the hearing.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.94(3) was cited in the decision.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The tenant's failure to comply with procedural requirements and attend the hearing was the central issue.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing a tribunal must strictly adhere to all procedural requirements and attend hearings as scheduled.
What evidence or documents mattered?
No specific evidence or documents were mentioned as critical in this decision.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions of the First-tier Tribunal can often be appealed, but it depends on the circumstances and the grounds for appeal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.