The Upper Tribunal has ruled that the First-tier Tribunal was entitled to hear rent repayment applications without a landlord who gave no explanation of why he could not attend in person, and the orders stand.
Key facts
- Who: Landlords facing rent repayment applications, and tenants who bring them
- From: 10 March 2026
- Source: Vinod Nair v Adiya Cherukovilakath & Ors [2026] UKUT 111 (LC)
In Vinod Nair v Adiya Cherukovilakath & Ors [2026] UKUT 111 (LC), decided on 10 March 2026, Judge Elizabeth Cooke in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) dismissed a landlord's appeal against rent repayment orders. The appeal was decided on written representations.
Background
Mr Nair is the registered owner of 96 Perry Vale, London SE23. Three former tenants rented rooms there during 2023 and had all left by mid-September 2024. They applied to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for rent repayment orders, on the basis that the property was an unlicensed house in multiple occupation (HMO). The applications were heard together on 5 June 2025, and the tribunal made orders against Mr Nair.
The question
Mr Nair argued that the First-tier Tribunal was wrong to go ahead without him. He said this meant his finances and conduct were not properly considered.
The decision
The appeal failed. The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal had good reason to proceed, and its orders stand. A stay on enforcement imposed pending the appeal was lifted.
The reasoning
Mr Nair twice applied for a remote hearing, citing "ongoing non-discretionary family care responsibilities". He expressly withheld further details for privacy reasons. Both applications were refused. One tenant opposed a remote hearing.
The judge noted that remote hearings are no longer standard and will be ordered when there is a good reason. Mr Nair never said what his responsibilities were or why they stopped him attending. The judge accepted that family circumstances can be hard to disclose, but said they could have been explained to the tribunal confidentially, and he had ample time to do so.
Under rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, if a party fails to attend, the tribunal may proceed if it is satisfied that the party was notified of the hearing, or that reasonable steps were taken to notify them, and considers it in the interests of justice to proceed. The First-tier Tribunal did not expressly consider the interests of justice, but the judge said it would certainly have found them met. Mr Nair had known about the hearing for months and had sent written representations.
The judge also rejected his suggestion that a nominal £1 order would have been right. His own written evidence showed he had savings, and the order was not a high one.
What this means for landlords and tenants
In this case, the tribunal refused a remote hearing because Mr Nair gave no explanation of why he could not attend in person. The judge said remote hearings are ordered when there is a good reason, and that private circumstances could have been explained confidentially.
Under rule 34, a tribunal may go ahead in a party's absence if it is satisfied the party was notified of the hearing, or that reasonable steps were taken to notify them, and it considers that proceeding is in the interests of justice.
Any party has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law, but only with permission. An application must be received within one month of the decision being sent to the parties, with a different timing rule where costs are applied for. Anyone affected should get advice before that deadline passes.
Sources
- Vinod Nair v Adiya Cherukovilakath & Ors [2026] UKUT 111 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 10 March 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/lc/2026/111