LDC (Ferry Lane 2) GP3 Limited & Ors v Maria Ayoob & Ors

Where a tribunal has already determined rent repayment percentages for the same landlord, property and factual matrix, it is unfair and irrational, or involves failure to consider a relevant consideration, to reach a materially different outcome in later cases without a material difference in facts. Previous decisions on the amount of a rent repayment order are guidance, not precedents determining the amount. A tribunal must retain discretion to assess quantum, but that discretion must be exercised consistently where identical facts concerning the same landlord and property have already been determined. The appropriate remedy may be substitution of the earlier percentage rather than remittal where a further hearing would be disproportionate.

The appeal concerned 113 rent repayment order applications by tenants of three student-accommodation blocks. The applications were stayed in the First-tier Tribunal pending the Upper Tribunal’s decision in earlier North Lodge proceedings involving materially identical facts. In those proceedings, 50% of the rent was ordered to be repaid. The FTT later determined the 113 applications without a hearing and ordered repayment of 65%, relying on a survey of other Upper Tribunal decisions and finding no conduct warranting a further adjustment.

The landlords appealed. The central issue was whether the FTT could reach a materially different quantum decision on identical facts concerning the same landlord and property, notwithstanding the absence of an issue estoppel or a formal lead-case designation.

1. Appeal allowed. The FTT’s decision was set aside and the Upper Tribunal substituted its own decision that 50% of the rent was repayable in each case.
2. The FTT was entitled to make its own assessment of quantum. Decisions concerning the amount of a rent repayment order are not precedents determining the outcome of later cases. Previous decisions may nevertheless be considered as guidance and in the interests of consistency across the jurisdiction.
3. The FTT’s reliance on wider Upper Tribunal decisions was not itself erroneous. The error arose because the present cases involved the same landlord, the same property context and the same material facts as the North Lodge litigation. The delay was identical, and the FTT found that the landlords’ conduct made no difference to the award. It therefore had not made fresh findings capable of justifying a different result.
4. In those circumstances, treating the same landlord differently on the same facts was unfair and irrational, or at least involved failing to take into account the need for consistent decision-making. That conclusion did not depend on the applications being formal lead cases under rule 23 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, nor on the existence of an issue estoppel.
5. The legitimate-expectation argument did not independently succeed. The required direct and sufficiently focused assurance or indication was absent. The substance of the complaint was instead the unfair inconsistency in decision-making.
6. Remittal for a further hearing was disproportionate, having regard to the amounts in dispute for the landlord group and individual tenants. The Upper Tribunal therefore substituted the 50% award.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): the FTT’s decision of 29 November 2024 was set aside and 50% of the rent was substituted as repayable in each case.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): determined 113 applications without a hearing and ordered repayment of 65% of the rent.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): in the separate North Lodge proceedings, ordered repayment of 50% of the rent; that outcome was upheld by the Upper Tribunal in [2024] UKUT 40 (LC).