Afshan Mughai & Anor v Busola Samuel-Ougundana

Where a tribunal proceeding is brought against a party, service on that party’s agent is ineffective unless the party has authorised the agent to receive proceedings. The First-tier Tribunal must serve the application and its directions on the respondent in accordance with the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. A procedural irregularity of this kind, which deprives the respondent of notice of the proceedings and hearing, justifies setting aside the resulting decision. The applicant’s lack of fault does not prevent that remedy.

The landlords appealed against a rent repayment order made by the First-tier Tribunal concerning their property. The tenant’s application named the landlords as respondents but identified their letting agent. The FTT served the application, directions and decision on the agent, without authority from the landlords and without serving the landlords themselves.

The landlords therefore did not know the substance of the proceedings or the hearing date until long after the order had been made. The central issue was whether the FTT’s failure to serve the proceedings on the landlords required the order to be set aside.

1. Appeal allowed. The rent repayment order made by the First-tier Tribunal was set aside.
2. Under rule 29(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the FTT was required to serve the proceedings and its directions on the appellants, as the respondents in the FTT proceedings. Service on their letting agent was permissible only if the appellants had authorised the FTT to serve proceedings on that agent.
3. The FTT had received no written notice of representation under rule 14(2), and had no authority from the appellants to serve the agent. The agent’s knowledge that proceedings existed did not amount to effective notice to the appellants, particularly since the application and directions were not forwarded to them.
4. The failure to serve the appellants was a procedural irregularity. It deprived them of notice of the application and hearing and meant that the order could not stand. The appellants’ failure to communicate adequately with their agent did not cure the FTT’s failure to comply with its own service obligation.
5. The tenant was not at fault. If she wished to pursue the rent repayment order application, she could apply to the FTT for directions.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): allowed the landlords’ appeal and set aside the rent repayment order made by the First-tier Tribunal.