Alcantara & Fernandez v Adams

The appeal in Alcantara & Fernandez v Adams was brought by the tenants, Alcantara and Fernandez, against the respondent, Adams. The tenants sought to challenge the decision of the tribunal which had ruled in favour of Adams in a dispute concerning damages to a tenancy. The core of the dispute was whether the tribunal had adequately discounted the replacement costs for items that were over eight years old, which the tenants claimed were not sufficiently reduced. Additionally, the tenants argued that the tribunal had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure they understood the proceedings, particularly as English was not their first language and no interpreter was present during the hearing, despite no application for one being made.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the tribunal had erred in its assessment of the replacement costs for the aged items and whether the tribunal had failed to ensure that the tenants, due to their linguistic background, could adequately understand and participate in the proceedings. The court needed to examine if these errors were significant enough to warrant a new hearing or an appeal. The tenants argued that the tribunal's failure to discount the replacement costs for the aged items amounted to an error of law, and the lack of an interpreter meant they could not fully understand the proceedings, which impacted their ability to defend themselves.

In considering the appeal, the court found that the tribunal had appropriately assessed the replacement costs, taking into account the age of the items and applying the necessary discounts. The court also determined that the tribunal had taken reasonable steps to ensure the tenants understood the proceedings, given the circumstances. The tenants had not applied for an interpreter and had not raised the issue of language barriers until the appeal stage. The court held that the tribunal was not obliged to provide an interpreter sua sponte, and the tenants had not demonstrated that the lack of an interpreter had prejudiced their case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.