Seng Keong Teoh & Ors v Irene Patsovska

In rent-determination proceedings, the landlord is the proper respondent. A managing agent named by the tenant does not become the landlord’s representative unless the landlord gives the tribunal and the other parties written notice of the appointment under rule 14(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

The tribunal must serve the application on the landlord and give the landlord reasonable notice of the hearing. Failure to do so is a procedural irregularity, but does not automatically invalidate the proceedings. The irregularity amounts to an error of law where it makes the decision materially unfair. In deciding whether to proceed, the appellate tribunal may resolve disputed awareness on written material where a further hearing would be disproportionate.

The tenant referred a notice under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), naming the landlords’ managing agent rather than the landlords as respondent. The FTT sent the application and hearing notice only to the agent, proceeded in the absence of both the agent and the landlords, and determined a rent of £1,870 per month.

The landlords appealed, contending that they had not known of the proceedings and had been denied an opportunity to participate. The central issues were whether the agent could be treated as their representative, whether the FTT’s failure to notify the landlords was a procedural irregularity, and what consequence should follow.

1. Appeal allowed; FTT decision set aside and matter remitted. The rent was to be redetermined by the FTT by reference to the matters specified in section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
2. Under rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, an agent is not a representative for procedural purposes unless the party gives written notice of the representative’s appointment to the FTT and the other parties. The tenant could not confer that status by naming the agent in the application. The agent’s service of the rent-increase notice and submission of a reply did not supply the necessary authority.
3. The proper respondent to a section 13 rent reference is the landlord. Rule 29(1) therefore required the FTT to provide the application to the landlords. Rule 29(7) permitted notice to an agent in addition, but not instead. Reasonable notice of the hearing under rule 32(1) could be given to an agent only after a valid appointment under rule 14(2).
4. Rule 8(1) means that non-compliance with the Rules, including by the FTT itself, does not automatically render proceedings void. However, under section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, a sufficiently serious procedural irregularity or breach of natural justice is an error of law if it makes the decision unjust.
5. The landlords’ asserted lack of awareness was accepted for the purpose of the appeal. Following the approach usefully illustrated by Bank of Scotland v Pereira [2011] EWCA Civ 241, it was proportionate to decide the issue on the written material rather than require a further fact-finding hearing. The failure to notify the landlords was therefore materially unfair.
6. The analysis was independent of rule 34. In any event, the FTT could not properly assume that the agent acted on the landlords’ instructions when the landlords had not been served and the agent had not been nominated. A panel including members of the original panel could conduct the redetermination.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) — allowed the appeal, set aside the FTT’s rent determination, and remitted the matter for redetermination.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) — determined the rent at £1,870 per month, effective from 1 October 2024.