Tenant Loses Case Due to Statutory Time Limit

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case references : LON/00BH/HMF/2021/0163 LON/00BH/HMF/2021/0211 LON/00BH/HMF/2021/0214 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] (2) [NAME] (3) The 28 people named in the schedule accompanying [NAME]/00BH/HMF/2021/0214 Representative : Flat Justice CIC George Penny Respondents : [redacted] [COMPANY]. (2) [COMPANY]. (3) [COMPANY]. (4) [NAME] (5) [COMPANY]. Representative : [RESPONDENT]. Solicitors (for the fifth Respondent); [RESPONDENT] of [NAME] : [NAME] for rent repayment orders by tenants Sections 40, 41, 43, & 44 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 Tribunal : Tribunal Judge [NAME] of Hearing : 16 March 2023 Date of Decision : 17 March 2023

DECISION in 2021/0163

(1) The Tribunal has received three applications under section 41 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (the Act) from the various applicants for rent repayment orders (RROs).

2 (2) A case management hearing was heard by Judge Walker who wrote - “In the [NAME] with reference number LON/00BH/HMF/2021/0163 brought by Mr. [NAME], the named Respondents are the First to the Fourth Respondents, the fifth Respondent is not named. In all other cases the only named Respondent is the Fifth Respondent. Mr. [RESPONDENT] made it clear that in all cases the only Respondent against whom an order is sought is the Fifth Respondent. He invited the Tribunal to substitute the Fifth Respondent for those respondents named in Mr. [RESPONDENT] [NAME]. Mr. [RESPONDENT] on behalf of the Fifth Respondent objected to this on the basis that this would have the effect that Mr. [NAME] [NAME] was out of time as against the Fifth Respondent. The Tribunal concluded that the issue of whether or not any [NAME] against the Fifth Respondent was in time or not would need to be determined when the applications themselves are determined. In Mr. [NAME] case he will need to show on what basis he is entitled to an order against [COMPANY]. However, the Tribunal concluded that the mere act of substituting the Fifth Respondent for those previously named would not of itself prejudice them as it was open to them to raise the limitation point. “

(3) To that end Judge Walker later directed that -

“Pursuant to rule 10 of the [COMPANY]. is substituted for the four named Respondents in the [NAME] brought by Mr. [NAME] (LON/00BH/HMF/2021/0163). Mr. [NAME] will need to show in due course that his [NAME] against [COMPANY]. has been brought within time.”

(4) A hearing of this matter took place on 16 March when the Tribunal received written submissions and heard oral submission on this specific issue affecting the [NAME] made by Mr [APPELLANT]. (5) The applicant set out a chronology – “The following chronology is relevant to [NAME] this determination: A. Mr [NAME] left the property on the 10th of July 2020. B. RRO1 [NAME] submitted on 1st of July 2021. On the RRO1 form, [RESPONDENT] and the owners of the building are listed as Respondent. C. On 29 July 2021, [NAME] found that Applicants must make claims against their ‘immediate landlord’ [RESPONDENT]. On the 18th of July 2021, the Applicants requested that the Respondent in BL’s case be changed to [RESPONDENT] in light of Rakusen.” (6) The Applicants accepted that Mr [RESPONDENT] made his request to change the Respondent more than 12 months after the date Mr [APPELLANT] left the

3 property. However, the Applicant contended that [APPELLANT] had effectively been served notice of proceedings on 1 July 2021. The applicant makes this assertion because [APPELLANT] and [COMPANY] “are two branches of the same company, sharing the same Directors and the same offices. “ (7) The applicant went on to say that “Indeed the distinction between the 2 companies has been the subject of deliberation already at the property tribunals which have concluded that it is very difficult to distinguish them, nor can the company officers make a clear explanation.” To support this the applicant provided an excerpt from the decision in LON/00AT/HNA/2021/0021, LON/00AT/HMK/2021/0003 & LON/00AT/HMK/2021/0008. The Tribunal in that case observed that “The explanation provided to the Tribunal as to the relationship between GGM and G100 has been vague, unclear and. wholly unsatisfactory. They have worked closely together and their operations appear to be entirely Intertwined”. (8) On the other hand the Respondent asserted that the [NAME] was out of time as the deadline was not capable of enlargement, it being a strict time limit set down by statute. Similarly the Respondent stated that the two companies were completely separate and were not even in a group of companies. (9) The Tribunal agreed with the respondent. Mr [RESPONDENT] made his request to change the Respondent more than 12 months after the date Mr [RESPONDENT] left the property. He was out of time having commenced his [NAME] previously without referring to the appropriate respondent. The licence agreement was clear, the applicant’s agreement was with the fifth respondent and not the respondent named in the original [NAME]. It would be inappropriate of this tribunal to somehow enable an applicant to change horses mid-stream when there were clear time limits in place that would otherwise need to be strictly adhered to. (10) Rights of appeal are set out in an annexe to this decision.

Name: Tribunal [NAME]: 17 March 2023

Annexe

Rights of Appeal

1. 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.

4

2. 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].

3. 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.

4. 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.