An Appeal Court judge has questioned whether applications to rent assessment committees should be made electronically. The judge suggested that more thought should be given to the provision of assured receipts for such applications.
The comments were made by Sedley LJ in a test-case judgment that found that although Katie Lester had done “what any reasonable tenant would do” in assuming that sending her application by first class on 18 March 2002 would ensure its arrival within the two-day time limit, the Court of Appeal could not find in her favour.
The court upheld last November’s High Court decision that Lester’s reference to the London Rent Assessment Committee must be deemed to have been made on the day on which it arrived, 22 March, rather than on the day of posting.
The committee declined to accept the application on the basis that it had not been referred prior to the date from which her landlord’s notice of increased rent was due to take effect. Under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988, Lester was obliged to prove that she had referred her application to the committee within the time limit.
In the Court of Appeal, Waller LJ said that the ordinary natural meaning of the word “refer” connotes receipt by another party. Thus, the referral could not take effect from the date of posting.
Sedley LJ agreed, but called for a reform of the law to provide a method of assured receipt to ensure that an effective referral was within every tenant’s reach.
He said: “I do not think, any more than I believe the other members of this court do, that this is necessarily a just outcome. It results simply from the fact that this court cannot, even if it felt equipped to, rewrite the present unsatisfactory legislative scheme for contesting a rent increase.
“More thought needs to be given to providing some form of – possibly electronic – assured receipt for applications of this kind.”
R (on the application of Lester) v London Rent Assessment Committee Court of Appeal (Waller, Tuckey and Sedley LJJ) 12 March 2003.
Robert Latham (instructed by McMillen Hamilton McCarthy) appeared for the appellant; Timothy Morshead (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.
References: PLS News 13/3/03
