Father of evicted tenant refused permission to appeal decision on daughter’s behalf after accusing tribunal of corruption

About this case:

• Citation:
  2024UT55
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Upper Tribunal for Scotland
• Judge:
  Sheriff McCartney

Trinity Patel rented a room from Mark Stubbs until she was evicted to allow the landlord to sell the property. Her application alleged that the First-tier Tribunal had acted unlawfully in deciding her case via a case management discussion and that it should not have found that she had a private residential tenancy.

The application was considered by Sheriff Frances McCartney. The appellant was represented by her father Pankaj Patel, who alleged multiple unlawful acts on the part of the FTS, while the respondent was represented by Clarity Simplicity Solicitors.

Lodger agreement

The appellant rented a room from the respondent in a flat owned by him. Other rooms were rented to unconnected individuals, with use of certain other rooms in the flat allowed on a shared basis. Notice to leave was served on the appellant after the respondent decided to recover possession of the whole property in order to sell it, and in addition he sought arrears of rent.

Mr Patel became involved in the dispute when the appellant expressed opposition to leaving the property. He pointed out to the respondent that he was not registered as a landlord and did not have an HMO licence. At a case management discussion in which the appellant did not participate, the FTS decided that the appellant had a private residential tenancy and resolved the eviction and rent arrears issues in favour of the respondent.

A hearing on permission to appeal was assigned for 19 September by video call, although Mr Patel had called for the application to be decided on the papers alone. He submitted 11 grounds of appeal, which alleged that the FTS had no jurisdiction over what he averred was a “lodger agreement” and that it was unlawful for the FTS to convert such an agreement into a PRT.

Mr Patel went on to argue that the FTS had no right to conduct what was effectively a hearing under the guise of a case management discussion in the absence of the appellant. He further argued that “incompatible subordinate legislation” had been used in order to do so, contrary to the human rights of the appellant.

Failed to focus

In her decision, Sheriff McCartney began by observing: “It is not for the Upper Tribunal to rehear the facts heard by the FTS in the hope that the Upper Tribunal might take a different view on the evidence. Rather, the Upper Tribunal must consider whether there is an arguable ground of appeal. Mr Patel’s written submissions were often repetitive and failed to focus on what the errors of law were said to be.”

She continued: “[The FTS] made relevant findings as to the factual position to allow it to reach a conclusion as to the legal status of the tenancy. It gave reasons why reached that conclusion. It did so against the background that the Appellant did not attend, and did not provide contrary submissions as to the correct classification of the tenancy.”

Noting that the respondent had become a registered landlord by the time of the hearing, the sheriff said: “The failure of the Respondent to register as a landlord could have other consequences, but it does not follow that the Respondent cannot seek the orders as granted. If the Appellant’s argument was true, the Appellant would be entitled to stay in the leased address for whatever period she pleased, and without any obligation to pay rent simply because a landlord had not registered with the local authority.”

She went on to say: “Mr Patel fails to acknowledge it was his decision not to attend on behalf the Respondent. That led to the FTS only hearing from one party. If a party chooses not to attend a hearing, that party cannot expect matters to be delayed or the hearing adjourned unless there is good reason to do so.”

Sheriff McCartney also noted that Mr Patel’s submissions were “peppered with accusations” of impropriety against the respondent and the FTS, and concluded: “Mr Patel refers to the  solicitors as committing perjury, accuses the FTS members of corruption, of the FTS covering up crimes. He also complains of being treated less favourably because of his race. It does not assist Mr Patel to raise such allegations in the absence of evidence. An assertion is not evidence. There is nothing in his papers that suggests any of his allegations are true.”

Permission to appeal the decision of the FTS was therefore refused.