VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Discharges Management Order Under Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal discharged a management order for a property because the property had been improved and no one objected to the discharge.

⚖️ Legal holding

Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, a management order can be discharged if it is just and convenient.

Topics

tenancy managementdischarge of management order

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s.24

Under this section, an appropriate tribunal can appoint a manager to handle the management of certain premises if they find it just and convenient to do so. The tribunal must be satisfied that there is a breach of obligations related to the management of the premises or that unreasonable service charges have been made or are likely to be made. Additionally, the tribunal must conclude that it is just and convenient to make the order considering all the circumstances.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal discharged the management order under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal discharged the management order of a property manager under section 24(9A) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, finding that the order should not recur and it was just and convenient to discharge it.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/45UH/LVM/2018/0009

Property

:

5, [ADDRESS], Worthing West Sussex [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

Respondent: [redacted]

:

Type of Application

:

Discharge of Appointment of a manager

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Judge Tildesley OBE

Date and Venue of Hearing

:

10 April 2019 Havant Justice Centre, [ADDRESS], Havant Po9 2AL

Date of Decision : 11 April 2019

DECISION

2 1. The Applicant applies for an order discharging the appointment of Mr [NAME] [NAME] as Receiver and Manager of the Property which was made under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and took effect from 7 June 2004.

2. The application was sent to the long leaseholders of the five flats at the property and to Mr [NAME].

3. The leaseholders made no representations to the Tribunal.

4. Mr [NAME] in a letter dated 3 April 2019 expressed his full support of the application. Mr [NAME] also explained that throughout his period of management it had been difficult to secure the proper and full funding as envisaged under the leases to maintain the property to the required standard. Mr [NAME] in a further email to the Tribunal dated 9 April 2019 indicated that he agreed with the direction regarding final accounts and confirmed that there were no further outstanding fees. The Tribunal excused Mr [NAME] attendance at the hearing.

5. The application was heard on 10 April 2019 at Havant Justice Centre. [NAME] and [NAME] the directors and shareholders of the [COMPANY] attended the hearing. Mr [APPELLANT] presented the case for the Applicant.

6. The Tribunal found the following facts:

• The Applicant purchased the freehold of the property on 11 October 2016.

• The Applicant was not the freeholder at the time the Management Order was made.

• The property had fallen into substantial disrepair.

• The Applicant had renovated a neighbouring property and intended to do the same with the subject property.

• No leaseholder objected to the Application. The current manager thoroughly supported it.

7. The Tribunal is satisfied in accordance with section 24(9A) of the 1987 Act that if the Order was discharged there would be no recurrence of the circumstances which led to the order being made and that it is just and convenient in all the circumstances t0 discharge the order.

8. The Tribunal discharges the Mr [NAME] from his appointment as Receiver and Manager of the property with immediate effect.

9. The Tribunal directs Mr [NAME] to prepare and submit a brief written report for the Tribunal on the progress and outcome of the

3 management of the Property and to include final closing accounts. The Manager shall also serve copies of the reports and accounts on the freeholder and leaseholder who may raise queries within 14 days. The Manager shall answer such queries within a further 14 days. Thereafter the Manager shall reimburse any unexpended monies to the freeholder or in the case of dispute as decided by the Tribunal upon application by any interested person.

4

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:

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 current manager fully supported the application to discharge the management order.
  • The leaseholders did not object to the application.
  • The property had fallen into significant disrepair, and the applicant intended to renovate it.
  • The Tribunal was satisfied that the circumstances leading to the order would not recur if discharged.
  • The Tribunal found it just and convenient to discharge the management order.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to discharge the management order of the property.

Who was involved?

The freeholder of the property and the leaseholders were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to discharge the order because the property had been improved and no leaseholder objected.

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 that the property had been improved and there were no objections from the leaseholders.

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 might be able to discharge a management order if they can show improvements and lack of objections.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of property improvements and lack of objections from leaseholders mattered.

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 get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.

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.