Claimant Granted Right to Manage Property Without Claim Notice
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal granted the claimant's request to manage the property without having to notify the landlord first. This decision was made because the claimant tried to contact the landlord but could not find them.
⚖️ Legal holding
Where the claimant has taken proper steps to ascertain the identity of the landlord but has not been successful, the Tribunal may grant the right to manage the property.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted the claimant's application to acquire the right to manage the property without serving a claim notice under section 79.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal granted the claimant's application to acquire the right to manage the property without serving a claim notice under section 79 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Tribunal found that the claimant had taken proper steps to ascertain the identity of the landlord but had not been successful.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference : MAN/00BS/LOA/2019/0001 Property : 23, [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] : [NAME], Solicitors Respondent: [redacted] Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – Section 85(2) Tribunal Members : JudgeC.Wood
Judge L.Bennett
Date of Decision : 5 June 2019
_______________________________________________
DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019
Order 1. Pursuant to section 85(2) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002,
(“the Act”), the Tribunal orders that the Applicant is to acquire the right to
manage the Property without being required to serve a claim notice under
section 79. 2. In accordance with section 90(6) of the Act, the Tribunal determines that the
date of acquisition is 14 days from the date of this Order.
Background 3. By an application dated 24 January 2019, (“the Application”), the Applicant
made an application relating to (no fault) right to manage claim in respect of
the Property.
4. A statement by the [NAME] in support of the Application stated as
follows: 4.1 the Property is divided into three leasehold titles; 4.2 the three leaseholders are the members and directors of the Applicant; 4.3 there are no other tenants who are required to receive notice of participation
under section 78 of the Act; 4.4 the freehold title is registered in the joint names of [RESPONDENT] and [RESPONDENT]; 4.5 none of the three leaseholders has had any contact with Mr. or Mrs. [RESPONDENT]; 4.6 the leaseholders’ attempts to contact Mr.& Mrs.[RESPONDENT] by letter had been
unsuccessful; 4.7 the [NAME] engaged trace agents who believed that Mr.[RESPONDENT]
may have passed away and identified a Ms [RESPONDENT], believed to be
the daughter of Mr.& Mrs. [RESPONDENT]. Letters sent to Ms [RESPONDENT] have received
no response. 5. Directions dated 27 February 2019 were issued. 6. In a statement by [APPELLANT], director of the Applicant,
dated 27 March 2019, the matters requiring confirmation in the Directions
were addressed by provision of the following documentary evidence: 6.1 the Applicant’s incorporation documents; 6.2 Land Registry documents relating to the freehold and leasehold titles; 6.3 report of search agents and copy letters sent to Ms [NAME].[NAME]. 6.4 confirmation that the three qualifying tenants are members and directors of the
Applicant.
Reasons 7. Having regard to the documentary evidence provided by the Applicant, the
Tribunal was satisfied that proper steps had been taken by the Applicant to
ascertain the identity of the landlord of the Property but that these had not
been successful. 8. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considered that it was reasonable to make
an order that the Applicant is to acquire the right to manage the Property. 9. The Tribunal further considered that the date of acquisition should be 14 days
from the date of this Order.
Tribunal Judge C Wood 10 June 2019
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Granted Right to Manage Property Without Claim Notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Validity of Second Claim Notice Upheld Despite First's Invalidity
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Service Charge Refunds in First-tier Tribunal Case
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Longer-term Energy Con…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Secures Right to Manage Despite Uncooperative Landlord
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Short-term Lets Breach Lease Covenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charge Disputes
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal rules against service charges for standalone leasehold houses
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Tenant's Airbnb Use Breaches Lease Covenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Service Charge for CCTV
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Ordered to Pay £803.50 in Administration Costs for Unpaid Service Ch…
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The claimant has taken proper steps to identify the landlord.
- The landlord does not respond to the claimant's requests or notices.
- The claimant challenges the reasonableness of service charges or other fees.
- The claimant seeks to enforce lease covenants regarding property usage.
- The claimant requests the exclusion of unreasonable costs from service charges.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- No cases provided a clear opposing pattern in the given context.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal granted the claimant's application to acquire the right to manage the property without serving a claim notice under section 79.
Who was involved?
The claimant, who is trying to manage the property, and the landlord, whose identity could not be ascertained.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant the claimant's application because they had taken proper steps to find the landlord but were unsuccessful.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 85(2) and Section 90(6) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant's argument that they had taken proper steps to find the landlord but were unsuccessful.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
For the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might also be able to manage their property without notifying the landlord if they can prove they took proper steps to find the landlord but were unsuccessful.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Documents proving the claimant's attempts to contact the landlord were unsuccessful.
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 always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.
