Malekout v London Rent Assessment Panel & Anor

A tribunal may refuse a further postponement or adjournment where the request is one-sided, late, unsupported by adequate evidence, and follows earlier delays. Under Rent Assessment Committees (England and Wales) Regulations 1971, Regulation 8, the tribunal must consider the grounds and timing of the request and the parties’ convenience, while also proceeding expeditiously. A disabled party must show, with sufficiently specific evidence, why the proposed arrangements prevent effective participation. Where reasonable alternatives are offered, including separating an inspection from the hearing or holding a domiciliary hearing, failure to use them may justify proceeding with the case.

The appellant, a Rent Act protected tenant, challenged the London Rent Assessment Panel’s determination of the fair rent for his flat. He appealed under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, principally alleging procedural unfairness in the refusal of repeated requests for postponement or adjournment. He relied on disability, ill health, the burden of attending a hearing and property inspection on the same day, and an alleged failure to offer a domiciliary hearing. The Panel determined the matter in the appellant’s absence after considering his written material. The central issues were whether a domiciliary hearing had been offered and refused, and whether the refusal to delay the proceedings was lawful and fair.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The substantive challenges to the Panel’s assessment were not pursued once the procedural grounds failed.
2. Regulation 8 of the Rent Assessment Committees (England and Wales) Regulations 1971 required consideration of the grounds and timing of the request and the convenience of the parties. The Panel also had a clear obligation to process appeals expeditiously.
3. The judge accepted the evidence that a domiciliary hearing for the listed date had been offered and refused. The appellant had made several earlier postponement applications on different grounds. His later complaint about combining the hearing and inspection was made shortly before the hearing and was unsupported by recent medical evidence.
4. Even if the Panel had been mistaken about the offer of a domiciliary hearing, its decision remained lawful. The appellant had not shown why he could not attend the hearing and seek a later inspection, an option expressly offered to him. Nor had he explained why the inspection could proceed but the hearing could not.
5. The alleged breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was not established. General descriptions of illness and a previous Court of Appeal judgment did not demonstrate that the arrangements made it unreasonably difficult for him to participate, particularly in view of the alternatives offered.
6. The Panel was entitled, and in the circumstances obliged, to proceed. The appeal was dismissed. The first respondent received its costs subject to legal-aid assessment and enforcement only with the court’s permission. The landlord received £1,000 by way of a modest partial costs award, also subject to detailed assessment for legal-aid purposes.

• London Rent Assessment Panel: on 6 December 2004, determined the fair rent at £680 per month and proceeded with the hearing and inspection despite the appellant’s applications for further postponement or adjournment.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992.