First-tier Tribunal Corrects Clerical Errors in Property Management Decision
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal corrected some mistakes in a decision about appointing a manager for residential property management. They fixed errors related to the role of the a person respondent and the fees for management functions.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Tribunal has the authority to correct clerical errors in its decisions under Rule 50 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.
📖 Technical summary
Correction of clerical errors in a First-tier Tribunal decision regarding the appointment of a manager for residential property management.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal corrected clerical errors in a decision regarding the appointment of a manager for residential property management. The corrections addressed the role of the second respondent and the fees for management functions.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Other
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LAM/2020/0003 CVPREMOTE
Property : 70-72 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant : [redacted] As Attorney for [APPELLANT] :
Mr [COUNSEL] of [NAME], Solicitors
Respondent: [redacted]
[COMPANY] (1) And [COMPANY] (2)
Representative : Ms [COUNSEL] [NAME] of Counsel Type of application : Appointment of a Manager Tribunal member(s) : Judge [NAME]; Professional Member
Date of original decision Date of correction : 4 August 2020 7 September 2020
RULE 50 CORRECTION OF DECISION
1. In paragraph one of the original decision it was stated that “The [NAME] respondent, which is not actively participating in these applications, is the freeholder “. This was an error as the [NAME] respondent is the [NAME] and registered as such under title LN238555.
2. To correct this clerical error the Tribunal applies Rule 50 of the of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 S.I. 2013 No.
1169 (L. 8) and substitutes the words “[NAME]” for the incorrect word “freeholder” so that this sentence should now read “The [NAME] respondent, which is not actively participating in these applications, is the [NAME]”.
3. In paragraph1 of page 17 of the original decision it was stated that “Fees for the management functions given to the Manager under this order (with the exception of supervision of Major Works and carrying out the Work to which paragraphs 3 or 4 below applies) shall be £400.00 plus VAT per annum.” The Tribunal had decided that this was to be £400 per annum per unit.
4. To correct this clerical error the Tribunal applies Rule 50 of the of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 S.I. 2013 No. 1169 (L. 8). Therefore, the sentence should read “Fees for the management functions given to the Manager under this order (with the exception of supervision of Major Works and carrying out the Work to which paragraphs 3 or 4 below applies) shall be £400.00 plus VAT per annum per unit”. Name: Prof [NAME]: 07 September 2020
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Appoints Manager to Resolve Property Disputes
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Appoints Manager to Oversee Property Management
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Appoints Manager for Residential Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Extends Property Manager's Term for Three Years
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Appoints Property Manager Due to Communication Breakdow…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Reduces Tenant's Liability for Litigation Costs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) New Manager Appointed for Property Due to Lease Failures
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Appoints New Manager for Property Due to Poor Managemen…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Balcony Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charges for Major Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Appoints Manager Due to Breach of Lease Obligations
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
- Tenants are entitled to have a manager appointed by the Tribunal if the current management is inadequate.
- Tribunals may appoint managers to oversee property maintenance when there is a breakdown in communication among joint landlords.
- Landlords must comply with their obligations under the lease and relevant codes, making it just and convenient to appoint a manager.
- Tenants can have their liability to pay administration charges reduced if they have not been wholly successful in litigation.
- Managers' appointments can be extended if the property requires ongoing management and repairs.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No factors identified as leading to a decision against the claimant based on the provided similar cases.)
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It corrected some clerical errors in a previous decision about appointing a manager for residential property management.
Who was involved?
The decision involved a property owner and a residents' company managing the property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to correct the errors because they were clerical and did not affect the substance of the decision.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Rule 50 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 was used to correct the errors.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the errors were clerical and could be corrected under Rule 50.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was neutral as it only corrected clerical errors.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation can have clerical errors corrected in their decision if they meet the criteria set by Rule 50.
What evidence or documents mattered?
No new evidence or documents were required; the corrections were based on the existing decision.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions like this can typically be appealed if there are substantive issues at stake.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for specific legal cases.