Claimant Successfully Acquires Right to Manage Property
📌 In brief
The claimant successfully applied to gain control over managing their property, overcoming the landlord's objections. The First-tier Tribunal supported the claimant's application, ensuring compliance with the relevant statutes.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to acquire the right to manage their property if the landlord fails to comply with the statutory requirements under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's application to acquire the right to manage was successful due to the respondent's failure to comply with statutory requirements.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant applied to acquire the right to manage their property, while the landlord objected based on non-compliance with statutory requirements. The First-tier Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant, dismissing the landlord's objections.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
Case Reference : LON/00BG/LRM/2024/0022 Property : 87-89 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondent : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT] of Application : Application in relation to the denial of the Right to Manage Tribunal Members : Judge S Brilliant Ms M Krisko FRICS
Date and Venue
: 02 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 03 December 2024
DECISION
2
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
1. By a claim notice dated 30 April 2024, the applicant [COMPANY] made a claim to the respondent landlord that it was entitled to acquire the right to manage 87- 89 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the premises”).
2. The premises consist of seven [NAME] above a shop.
3. By a counternotice dated 11 June 2024, the respondent landlord denied the applicant had established the right to manage.
4. Three grounds of objection were given. The first objection 5. The first objection was that the internal floor area of the non-residential part of the premises exceeded 25% of the internal floor area of the premises taken as a whole: see s.72(6) and schedule 6 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (the Act”). The second objection 6. The second objection was that the notice of invitation to participate was not given to each person as required by s.78(1) of the Act.
7. Section 78(1) of the Act provides: Before making a claim to acquire the right to manage any premises, a [COMPANY] must give notice to each person who at the time when the notice is given— (a) is the qualifying tenant of a flat contained in the premises, but (b) neither is nor has agreed to become a member of the [COMPANY]. The third objection 8. The third objection was that the notice of invitation to participate was not given in time to each person as required by s.79(2) of the Act.
9. Section 79(2) of the Act provides: The claim notice may not be given unless each person required to be given a notice of invitation to participate has been given such a notice at least 14 days before. Directions
3
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
10. On 14 August 2024, [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] gave directions and ordered that the matter be dealt with without an oral hearing.
11. On 21 November 2024, Judge Tagliavini debarred the respondent from playing any further role in these proceedings because of persistent and serious breaches of the directions given.
12. We turn to each of the objections. The first objection 13. It was wholly disingenuous for the respondent to have persisted with this objection after it had obtained a surveyor’s report in July 2024. This report showed that the non-residential part was 13.34% of the whole. This objection fails. The second and third objections 14. Of the seven qualifying tenants, the [NAME] were the only ones not to be, or intending to be, members of the [COMPANY]. Notice of intention to participate was given to the [NAME] a month before the claim notice. These objections fail. Conclusion 15. The respondent’s case was wholly without merit. The application fees must be reimbursed. Name: Judge Simon Brilliant Date: 03 December 2024
Appendix: Rights of appeal
By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Subject property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.
4
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.
The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.
If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.
The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the subject property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.
If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Electrical Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Halts Market Rent Determination Until Valid Notice Confirmed
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Property Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Reviews Pitch Fee Increase Based on CPI
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment for Assured Tenancy: First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Management Company Allowed Urgent Lift Repairs Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Urgent Lift Repairs Dispensation in First-tier Tribunal Ca…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Works on Residential Estate
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Freeholder to Vary Leases for Sinking Fund and I…
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 landlord failed to comply with statutory requirements under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
- The case involved a history of non-compliance or persistent hazards.
- The works were deemed urgent and leaseholders did not object.
- The leaseholders had been made aware of the application and did not object.
- The landlord sought dispensation for urgent temporary works to prevent damage to a property.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The application did not meet the statutory requirements for its consideration.
- The landlord's notice under section 13 was found to be defective.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant was granted the right to manage their property.
Who was involved?
The claimant, the landlord, and the First-tier Tribunal were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the claimant because the landlord failed to comply with statutory requirements.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was applied, specifically sections 72(6), 78(1), and 79(2).
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the landlord's failure to provide proper notices to qualifying tenants.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that the landlord complies with all statutory requirements when denying the right to manage.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Surveyor's reports and notices provided to tenants were crucial pieces of evidence.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property management rights.
