First-tier Tribunal Dismisses Management Order After Freehold Purchase
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the a person to extend the order for the appointment of a manager after the tenants bought the freehold of the property. This means the management order is no longer needed.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Tribunal dismissed the application under the Leasehold Reform Act because the issue that necessitated the management order was resolved.
📖 Technical summary
The application to extend the order for the appointment of a manager was dismissed following the purchase of the freehold by the tenants.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal dismissed an application to extend the order for the appointment of a manager after the tenants purchased the freehold of the property. The decision was made on 24th April 2024 by Judge Adrian Jack at the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AG/LVM/2023/0015 Property : 36 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Respondents : [redacted] the leaseholders Type of [NAME] : To extend an order for the appointment of a manager Tribunal : Judge [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 24th April 2024
DECISION
Background 1. The final hearing in this matter was listed to take place on 9 February 2023 at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE].
2. The hearing was attended by the Applicant, [APPELLANT], accompanied by Ms [APPELLANT], the Property Manager. The hearing was also attended by [NAME] and [NAME], who are currently lessees.
3. Ms [NAME] and Mr [NAME] informed the Tribunal that they anticipate that they will purchase the freehold on 1 March 2024. It was therefore agreed that the final hearing of this [NAME] will be postponed in order to enable the proposed purchase to take place.
4. The Applicant indicated that, if the lessees purchase the freehold, he might agree that the management order should be discharged.
2 5. The Tribunal held a hearing today. The landlord, Ms [APPELLANT] (now Ms [APPELLANT]) did not attend. Neither did the applicant. Instead three lessees, Ms [APPELLANT], Mr [APPELLANT] and Mr [NAME], attended.
6. They explained that the purchase of the freehold had been completed on 16th April 2024. The freeholder was now 36 [APPELLANT], a tenant-owned company. In consequence there was no need to continue the appointment of the applicant, Mr [APPELLANT].
ORDER 1. The [NAME] by the Tribunal-appointed manager is dismissed. 2. No order for costs
Name: Judge Adrian Jack Date: 24th April 2024
NOTES (a) Whenever you send a letter or email to the tribunal you must also send a copy to the other parties and note this on the letter or email.
3
Rights of appeal
By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Pump Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Without Consulting Le…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Financial Penalty to £500
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Freeholder to Vary Leases for Sinking Fund and I…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Challenge Against Invalid Rent Increase Notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Obtains Right to Manage Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Lease Extension Premium Set at £32,300 - First-tier Tribunal Decision
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 tenants completed the purchase of the freehold, eliminating the need for a manager.
- The freeholder is now a tenant-owned company, making the appointment of the applicant unnecessary.
- The applicant had previously indicated that the management order might be discharged if the lessees purchased the freehold.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal dismissed the application to extend the order for the appointment of a manager.
Who was involved?
The claimant, the Property Manager, and the tenants were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the application because the tenants had purchased the freehold, eliminating the need for a management order.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The fact that the tenants had purchased the freehold was the central reasoning for dismissing the application.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If tenants purchase the freehold, the need for a management order may be eliminated.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The purchase of the freehold was confirmed during the hearing.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days.
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 orders.
