VadeLab
OtherFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant and Landlord Reach Settlement Through Consent Order

Case No.

📌 In brief

Tenants and a landlord reached a confidential settlement in a dispute over rent repayment. They agreed to a consent order in a First-tier Tribunal hearing.

⚖️ Legal holding

Tenants can settle disputes through consent orders under the Tribunal Procedure Rules.

Topics

tenancy disputesconsent orders

Provisions

Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 rule 35

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal made a consent order at the request of the parties.

📜 Headnote Official document

Tenants and a landlord reached a confidential settlement through a consent order in a First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) case, CAM/12UG/HMF/2024/0003, decided on 20 January 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Other

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY

Case reference

: CAM/12UG/HMF/2024/0003

Property

: 6 Chambers Dr

[NAME]

CB4

Applicant

: [redacted] [NAME]

: [NAME], Justice for Tenants

Respondent: [redacted]

: Mr [COUNSEL], solicitor

Date of [NAME] : 2 December 2023

Type of [NAME] : [NAME] for a rent repayment order, s.43 Housing and Planning Act 2016

The Tribunal

: Tribunal Judge S [NAME]/ place of hearing : 20 January 2025

[NAME] of decision : 20 January 2025

_________________________________

DECISION _________________________________ ©

2

(1) Pursuant to rule 35(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (First- tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal considers it appropriate, at the request of the parties, to make a consent order.

(2) Accordingly, no further order is made on the [NAME].

REASONS

Introduction

1. By their [NAME], the Applicants seek a rent repayment order.

The Hearing

2. The parties were granted time to negotiate until 12pm. The parties then provided a written consent order, which with minor amendments, was considered by the Tribunal to be appropriate to be the subject of a consent order.

3. The terms of the settlement are confidential to their parties and their advisers.

Determination

4. The Tribunal considers it appropriate to make an order disposing of the [NAME], the parties having agreed the terms of settlement in writing, pursuant to Rule 35 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

5. Accordingly, no further order is made on the [NAME].

Name: Tribunal Judge S Evans Date: 20 January 2025.

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

3

If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The Tribunal made a consent order because the parties requested it.
  • The Tribunal found the written consent order, with minor changes, suitable for a consent order.
  • The Tribunal considered it appropriate to make an order to dispose of the application, as the parties had agreed to the settlement terms in writing.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tenants and landlord reached a confidential settlement through a consent order.

Who was involved?

Tenants and a landlord were involved in the dispute.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court accepted the consent order because both parties agreed to it.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Rule 35 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The fact that both parties agreed to the terms of the settlement was the most important factor.

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

The decision was neutral as it was a mutual agreement between the parties.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Parties in a similar situation can reach a confidential settlement through a consent order.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The written consent order provided by the parties was the key document.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Consent orders are generally not appealable as they represent a mutual agreement between the parties.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for specific legal issues.

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.