First-tier Tribunal Extends Management Order for Major Works
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal extended a Management Order for two years to allow for major works on a Victorian house converted into flats. This decision was made under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
⚖️ Legal holding
A Tribunal may extend a Management Order if it is just and convenient to do so, considering the need for major works.
📖 What the law says
The appropriate tribunal can appoint a manager to handle the management of certain premises when it finds that a relevant person is in breach of obligations related to the management of those premises or when unreasonable service charges are involved. The tribunal must also determine that it is just and convenient to make such an order considering all the circumstances.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal extended the term of a Management Order for two years to allow for major works to be completed on a Victorian house converted into flats.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal extended the term of a Management Order for two years to allow for major works to be completed on a Victorian house converted into flats. The decision was made under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AN/LVM/2020/0013 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio) : P: PAPER REMOTE Property : 127 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Manager Representative : In Person Respondents : [redacted] lessees of flats at [NAME] : Not known Type of [NAME] : Appointment of Manager Tribunal member : Judge N Hawkes Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 22 December 2020
DECISION
Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote determination on the papers which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote determination was P: PAPER REMOTE. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all issues could be determined on paper. The documents that the Tribunal was referred to are the [NAME] form and a bundle of 53 pages filed by the
[NAME], the contents of which I have noted. The order made is described below. Decision of the Tribunal The term of the Management Order which was made on 20 September 2018 in [NAME] reference LON/00AN/LAM/2018/0008 is extended for a period of two years from the date of this decision.
Accordingly, the Management Order, as varied, shall expire on 22 December 2022. The Tribunal’s Determination 1. By an [NAME] dated 14 September 2020, the Applicant seeks the variation of a Management Order under section 24(9) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (“the 1987 Act”).
2. The existing Management Order is dated 20 September 2018 and it appoints the Applicant as Manager of 127 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“[NAME]”).
3. This Management Order was expressed to expire on 14 September 2020 but, by an interim order which was made on 8 September 2020, it was extended until the final determination of this [NAME].
4. The Tribunal has been informed that [NAME] is a Victorian house which has been converted into four flats, each of which is held on a long lease.
5. All of the [NAME] are directors of the [COMPANY], [APPELLANT].
6. The Applicant seeks a two year extension of the term of the Management Order to enable major works to be carried out to [NAME].
7. Section 24(9) of the 1987 Act provides: 24.— Appointment of manager by a tribunal … (9) The appropriate tribunal may, on the [NAME] of any [NAME], vary or discharge (whether conditionally or unconditionally) an order made under this section; and if the order has been protected by an entry registered under the Land Charges Act 1972 or the Land Registration Act 2002, the tribunal may by order direct that the entry shall be cancelled.
3 (9A) The tribunal shall not vary or discharge an order under subsection (9) on the [NAME] of any [NAME] unless it is satisfied— (a) that the variation or discharge of the order will not result in a recurrence of the circumstances which led to the order being made, and (b) that it is just and convenient in all the circumstances of the case to vary or discharge the order.
8. The Applicant gives the following reasons for [NAME] this [NAME]: “Further to my appointment as a manager in September 2018, I would like to confirm that my experience has been in general very pleasant. I am delighted to confirm that to date I have managed to complete all fire preventative works to the common parts, redecorate and replace the carpets throughout. The refreshed common parts and overhauled front garden have a definite impact on the residents’ experience when entering or leaving the building. The only outstanding issue, which demonstrated to be the most challenging, is the intention to carry out external repairs and redecorations. As it stands, the building is probably one of the worst looking on [ADDRESS] and I am desperate to have the works done. I have asked the Tribunal for consideration of my repairing obligations and currently awaiting further instructions on this (Case LON00AN/LSC/2020/0038). Unfortunately, due to an old unresolved matter combined with a lack of agreement between the directors, it proved to be impossible to even start the necessary consultation, hence my [NAME] to extend my appointment as the manager to enable me to start and complete the project. [NAME] have been paying their service charges and contributions towards reserves as demanded.” 9. By Directions dated 20 October 2020, the Respondents were directed to file and serve any statement of case in response to the Applicant’s [NAME] by 16 November 2020. None of the Respondents has sought to make any representations in response to this [NAME].
10. Section 24(9) of the 1987 Act gives the Tribunal a broad discretion. Having considered all of the evidence which has been provided by the Applicant and having noted the absence of any opposition to the proposed extension of the Management Order on the part of the Respondents, I am satisfied that the criteria set out in section 24(9) are satisfied.
11.
In all the circumstances, I find that it is just, convenient and appropriate to vary the Management Order by extending its term for 2 years from the date of this decision.
4
Name: Judge N Hawkes Date: 22 December 2020
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, [NAME] 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 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Drainage Repairs Due to Dry Rot
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Skip Consultation for Urgent Cladding Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Lease Breaches
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Permission for Urgent Boiler Work
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service Charge Limitation Ruling by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Successfully Obtains Right to Manage Property Despite Procedural I…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Local Authority Fails to Revoke HMO Declaration, Appeal Allowed
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
- There is no evidence of prejudice to tenants.
- The works are urgent and necessary to address a significant safety issue.
- The landlord is entitled to dispense with consultation requirements for urgent lift works if it is reasonable to do so.
- It is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 when there is an urgent need for repairs.
- An RTM company is entitled to acquire the right to manage premises if it complies with the necessary statutory requirements, even if there are minor procedural issues.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal extended the term of a Management Order for two years to allow for major works on a Victorian house converted into flats.
Who was involved?
The applicant, a manager appointed by the Tribunal, and the respondents, including the landlord company and the long lessees of flats.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to extend the Management Order because it was deemed just and convenient to do so, given the need for major works.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 was applied, specifically section 24(9) which allows the Tribunal to vary a Management Order.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the necessity for major works to improve the condition of the Victorian house.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, allowing the extension of the Management Order.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also seek an extension of a Management Order if there is a need for major works and it is just and convenient to do so.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the application form and a bundle of documents filed by the applicant.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days of receiving the written reasons for the decision.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving Management Orders and major works.
