AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·26 September 2024

First-tier Tribunal Allows Right to Manage Claim Under 2002 Act

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the applicant could acquire the Right to Manage their property under the no-fault RTM regime of the 2002 Act. The ruling was based on the proportion of non-residential space in the building, which was less than 25%. This means the applicant can now manage the property themselves.

⚖️ Legal holding

Under the Commonwealth and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, a property owner is entitled to acquire the Right to Manage if the property meets certain criteria.

Topics

Right to ManageLeasehold ReformResidential Property

Provisions

Commonwealth and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal determined that the applicant was entitled to acquire the Right to Manage under the no-fault RTM regime.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined that the applicant was entitled to acquire the Right to Manage under the no-fault RTM regime of the Commonwealth and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The decision was based on the proportion of non-residential space in the building, which was found to be less than 25%. Judge Shepherd delivered the judgment on 25th September 2024.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

In the FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case reference : LON/00AU/LRM/2024/0003

Property : 656 [APPELLANT], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] : N/A

Respondent: [redacted] : [COUNSEL] [RESPONDENT] of application: Application for a determination that the RTM Company was entitled to acquire the Right to Manage

DETERMINATION

1. In this case the Applicant, 656 [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] ( “The Applicant”) seeks a determination that they are entitled to acquire the Right to Manage pursuant to the no fault RTM regime under Chapter 1 of the Commonwealth and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The application related to premises at 656 [APPELLANT],[POSTCODE] (“The premises”). The Respondent , [RESPONDENT[COMPANY] (“The Respondent”) was originally opposing the application but by an email dated 5th September 2024 indicated that they conceded it. The proceedings have not been withdrawn since then so this determination has been made notwithstanding the concession.

2. The Applicants served a claim notice on 8th November 2023. In the notice they claimed they had the Right to Manage. The Respondents served a counternotice on 14th December 2023 in which they challenged the entitlement to the Right to Manage. In submissions they claimed that the premises had substantial non- residential parts. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the Act excludes buildings that consist of over 25% commercial rather than residential usage. Neither party had actually measured the building despite making confident claims in opposing directions.

3. In directions the Respondents were ordered to instruct a surveyor to carry out the measurements. After some delay [NAME] produced the report on 2nd September 2024. The report found that the gentleman’s hair dressing salon on the ground floor had an internal floor area which covered 19.72% of the entire building. Unsurprisingly the Respondents then conceded the application on 6th September 2024. The concession was well made because the Applicants are entitled to the Right to Manage.

4. The Applicants seek costs pursuant to Rule 13 of the Tribunal Procedure ( First Tier Tribunal) ( Property Chamber) Rules 2013. If they genuinely intend to pursue such an application they need to put their application in a proper form so that the Respondent has a fair opportunity to respond to it. At first blush a dispute in which neither party were properly equipped with evidence that was essential in this sort of application does not seem to meet the strict criteria in [ADDRESS] Co (1985) [COMPANY] v [NAME] v 231 [COMPANY] v [ADDRESS], [COMPANY] [2016]UKUT 290 (LC).

Judge Shepherd

25th September 2024

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL Appealing against the tribunal’s decisions

1. A written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional tribunal office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional tribunal office within 28 days after the date this decision is sent to the parties.

3. 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.

4. The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. All applications for permission to appeal will be considered on the papers

5. Any application to stay the effect of the decision must be made at the same time as the application for permission to appeal.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed11 cases

Dismissed1 case

First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Application to Acquire Right to Manage Premises Dismissed by First-tier Tri…

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 applicant was entitled to acquire the Right to Manage because the non-residential part of the building was less than 25% of the total area.
The respondent conceded the application after the surveyor's report confirmed the non-residential area was below the legal threshold.
The tribunal proceeded to make a determination despite the respondent's concession because the proceedings had not been formally withdrawn.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision allowed the applicant's claim for the Right to Manage their property.

Who was involved?

The case involved the applicant, who sought the Right to Manage, and the respondent, who initially opposed but later conceded the application.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the applicant because the proportion of non-residential space in the building was less than 25%, as required by the 2002 Act.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Commonwealth and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was applied, specifically the no-fault RTM regime.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the measurement of the non-residential space in the building, which was found to be less than 25%.

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 may also be able to acquire the Right to Manage if their property meets the criteria set out in the 2002 Act.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence that mattered was the report from Simon Levy Associates measuring the non-residential space in the building.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days of receiving the decision.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving the Right to Manage.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.