Ian George Johnson v Richmond Housing Partnership Ltd

A tenant’s reference of a rent-increase notice to the First-tier Tribunal may satisfy the statutory procedure through substantial compliance. A minor error in the prescribed application, including attaching the wrong rent notice, does not deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction where the application substantially identifies the challenge and the landlord is not misled. The same result may follow where the application is in a form substantially to the same effect as the prescribed form. The tribunal may give directions for correction, and jurisdiction is not lost where the defect is corrected before directions are given.

The tenant sought to challenge a rent increase under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988. He submitted the prescribed application form to the First-tier Tribunal in time, but attached the rent-increase notice for 2020–21 rather than the notice served in February 2021 for 2021–22.

The First-tier Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because the application did not include the notice to which the challenge related. The tenant appealed. The issues were whether the application was in a form substantially to the same effect as the prescribed form and whether the statutory requirements could be satisfied by substantial compliance.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the February 2021 notice, and the tenant’s application could proceed.
2. The prescribed application form required the tenant to attach a copy of the rent-increase notice. The absence of corresponding guidance on the tribunal’s version of the form did not alter the statutory requirement. The attachment was necessary because the form did not otherwise identify the date of the notice or the increase.
3. Regulation 2 of the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015 permitted use of a form substantially to the same effect as Form 6. The tenant’s use of the tribunal’s version of the form, despite attaching the wrong notice, satisfied that requirement. His error was minor and did not mislead the landlord.
4. The statutory requirement in section 13(4) of the Housing Act 1988 could also be satisfied by substantial compliance. The procedure concerned a challenge to a landlord’s notice, falling within the first category identified in Natt v Osman [2013] EWCA Civ 584, rather than the acquisition of a substantive private right.
5. The application substantially complied with the statutory requirements. The error confused the First-tier Tribunal but could not have confused the landlord, which knew the relevant notice and the challenge timetable. The tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to direct correction of the defect. The correct notice was supplied before any directions were given, so the application should have proceeded.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): On 7 July 2021, decided that it had no jurisdiction to determine the rent increase because the wrong notice had been attached.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Allowed the appeal and held that the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the February 2021 notice.