Application to Vary Order Appointing Manager Dismissed by First-tier Tribunal
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed an application to change the property manager because no one nominated themselves for the role. The Tribunal emphasised the need for a nominated manager under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
⚖️ Legal holding
A property cannot be managed without a nominated manager under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
📖 What the law says
The First-tier Tribunal can appoint a manager to manage certain premises when specific conditions are met. These conditions include breaches of obligations related to the management of the premises, unreasonable service charges, unreasonable variable administration charges, failure to comply with approved codes of practice, or other circumstances deemed just and convenient.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the application to vary the order appointing a manager due to lack of nomination for a new manager.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed an application to vary an order appointing a manager due to the lack of nomination for a new manager. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of having a nominated manager under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
:
CHI/00HE/LVM/2024/0004
Property
:
The Old Foundry, Roseland, Liskeard, Cornwall, [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
:
Respondents
: [redacted] Mr & Mrs [COUNSEL] (Flat 2)
Representative
:
Type of Application
:
Variation of an order appointing a manager- S.24 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
Tribunal Member(s)
:
Regional Judge Whitney
Date of Decision
:
5 November 2024
DECISION
2
1. On 15 May 2024 the Tribunal received an application from Mr and Mrs [NAME] of [NAME] to vary an Order for the Appointment of Manager made on 17 May 2023. The Applicant proposed that an alternative manager is appointed.
2. The current manager, Mr [NAME], was appointed on 24 May 2021. This appointment was extended in 2023 until 30 June 2025. This application for an extension was made by the Applicant and supported by the then [NAME].
3. The Applicants referred to the application being made on their own behalf and being supported by the other two [NAME]. The Applicants proposed “[NAME] from [NAME]. No complete details were provided.
4. Directions were issued on 5th July 2024 listing the matter for a hearing on 4th September 2024. In accordance with those directions Mr [NAME] did provide a report. Mr [NAME] invited the Tribunal to release him from his appointment.
5. The [NAME] of the other two flats also supported the removal of Mr [NAME] reluctantly due to what was referred to as a breakdown of communication [102-104].
6. A hearing took place on 4 September 2024. A decision was issued agreeing to the release of Mr [NAME] and providing directions for any party to nominate a new manager by the 31st October 2024.
7. No manager has been nominated by any party.
8. In accordance with the directions dated 4th September 2024 I have considered the application on the papers. Whilst I am satisfied it remains just and convenient for a manager to be appointed currently it appears no one is willing to accept the role. Mr [NAME] had made substantial progress but ultimately all the [NAME] supported his application to be released.
9. The Tribunal will only appoint if a manager is nominated. It does not have a list or access to managers of its own. As a result the application must now be dismissed on the basis that there is no manager to appoint.
10. I would urge the [NAME] to take legal advice. One way or another the situation needs to be resolved so that the Property can be adequately maintained and repaired which must be in the interests of all. As it stands no one appears to have legal responsibility or can be forced to undertake or contribute towards the costs of works. This position is wholly untenable.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Appoints Property Manager Under Landlord and Tenant Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Appointment of Property Manager
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Acquisition Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Request for Rent Repayment Order Denied Due to Selective Licensing…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rules: Claimant Agreed to Pay Administration Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Tenant’s Service Charge Challenge
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Validates Service Charges for Sinking Fund
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant's Request for Manager Appointment Denied by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Challenge to Parking Penalty Charges Imposed on…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service Charges Unpayable Due to Legal Non-Compliance
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Payability of Service Charges for Major Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds Equal Service Charge Apportionment
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant did not provide evidence of ongoing serious management failings.
- The claimant failed to demonstrate that the charges were unreasonable or not payable.
- The claimant did not meet the conditions required for the appointment of a manager under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
- Service charges and administration fees were deemed reasonable and compliant with legal requirements.
- The situation did not warrant the intervention of appointing a manager.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The application to vary the order appointing a manager was dismissed.
Who was involved?
The application was made by tenants and supported by other leaseholders.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the application should be dismissed because no one nominated themselves for the role of manager.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the lack of nomination for a new manager.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may face difficulties if no one nominates themselves for the role of manager.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the lack of nomination for a new manager.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.