The High Court dismissed three appeals by Piotr/Peter Nowak and Agnieszka Nowak against Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) Tenancy Tribunal determinations concerning their tenancy. Mr Justice Max Barrett ruled on 21 February 2017 that each appeal was without merit and that no relief would be ordered for either appellant. The judgment concluded that the Nowaks should pay all amounts outstanding to their landlords; it did not specify the amounts.
The appeals were brought under section 123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. The court said its role was constrained to considering points of law, rather than re-examining the Tribunal’s conclusions on the evidence.
Appeal A concerned a determination issued on 12 February 2016. The Nowaks challenged the market rent set by the Tribunal, its decision to reimburse them for one mattress rather than two, alleged victimisation by the management company and an alleged finding about unpaid rent. The judge said the first three complaints did not raise points of law. He found the Tribunal had not made a determination on rent non-payment; it had recorded that the parties confirmed rent payments had ceased.
Appeal B concerned a determination issued on 22 April 2016 in a rent arrears and overholding dispute. The Nowaks disputed the arrears calculation, damages and costs, and alleged bias. The court treated the challenges to the arrears and damages as objections to conclusions on evidence. It found the costs had been awarded under the Act and saw no basis to interfere. The judge also found no basis for the bias claims, including the fact that a Tribunal member recognised that Ms Nowak was Mr Nowak’s sister and that a member had sat on an earlier hearing involving the appellants.
Appeal C challenged a determination issued on 21 June 2016 requiring payment of rent arrears. The Nowaks argued there was no binding written or oral agreement on rent. The court held that this challenged the Tribunal’s conclusion on the evidence rather than raising a point of law.
Across the appeals, the judge found that the Tribunal had allowed the parties to present their cases, cross-examine and make final submissions. He identified no departure from natural or constitutional justice, the Residential Tenancies Act or the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment also noted that the landlords had not been joined as parties, though the court overlooked deficiencies in the notices of motion because the appellants were litigants in person.