First-tier Tribunal Extends Property Management Order for Three Years
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal extended the management order for a property for three more years, increasing the management fee to £1,900 plus VAT per annum. This was done to ensure proper management of the property and because the current manager agreed to continue managing it.
⚖️ Legal holding
A freeholder's management order can be extended if it ensures proper management of the property and the current manager consents.
📖 What the law says
This section allows the appropriate tribunal to appoint a manager to handle the management of certain premises when specific conditions are met. These conditions include breaches of obligations related to management, unreasonable service charges, or other circumstances deemed just and convenient.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal extended the management order for a property for three more years, increasing the management fee.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal extended the management order for a property for three more years, increasing the management fee to £1,900 plus VAT per annum. The extension was granted to ensure proper management of the property and because the current manager consented.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AN/LVM/2019/0006 Property : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] Representative :
Respondent : [redacted] executrix of [NAME] (freeholder) (2) [NAME] (existing tribunal appointed manager Interested person : [NAME] (freeholder’s manging agent|) Type of application : To extend an order for the appointment of a manager Tribunal member(s) : [NAME] [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 7 May 2019
DECISION
Order 1. Pursuant to our powers under section 24(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (“the Act”), we make an order extending the existing management order and Mr [NAME] appointment as manager of the property for a further period
of three years from 2 July 2019, so that the order will now expire on 1 July 2022.
2. The appointment of Mr [NAME] shall be on the same terms and conditions as the existing order, save that the management fee is to increase to £1,900.00 plus VAT per annum. For the avoidance of doubt, Mr [NAME] functions include the collection of service charges due from the first respondent.
3. Mr [RESPONDENT] appointment will remain fully in force and be effective until it expires or until it is replaced by a further order of this tribunal.
4. Any application for a further extension should be made by 1 April 2022.
5. The manager must by 1 August 2022 send to the tribunal and copy to the other parties a full report on his management with closing accounts. Reasons 6. Pursuant to section 24(2)(b) of the Act we are satisfied for each of the following reasons that it is just and convenient to make the order: • By an application notice dated 21 February 2019 the applicants applied to extend the existing management order appointing Mr [NAME] as manager. • By letter dated 26 February 2019 the tribunal directed the applicants to provide the tribunal with written confirmation from Mr [NAME] that he consented to the proposed extension of his appointment. The tribunal also directed Mr [RESPONDENT], the second respondent’s agent, to inform the tribunal whether the first respondent consented to or opposed the application. • Mr [RESPONDENT] has consented to being reappointed. Mr [NAME] has written that he does not object to the application. Mr [NAME] has provided a comprehensive report on his management to date. • The extension is required to ensure the proper management of the property and, in particular, to enable the manager to undertake the management plan set out in his witness statement dated 9 April 2019. • Whilst in normal circumstances it would be unusual to extend an order for so long, the applicants are unable to apply for a no fault management order under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, as there are insufficient qualifying tenants. s.20C application 7. The applicants have also made a s.20C application. Mr [NAME] has not responded to it and we consider it just and equitable for such an order to be made and for the costs of the applications to be reimbursed. Name: [NAME]: 7 May 2019
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 application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.
The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.
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.
The application 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 making the application is seeking.
If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application 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) Tenant Not Liable for HMO Penalties: First-tier Tribunal Ruling
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Held Responsible for Maintaining Structural Walls in Tenancy Dispu…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Successfully Obtains Right to Manage Property Despite Procedural I…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Flat Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy Set by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Roof Repairs Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Granted New Lease with Premium Determination
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 consents to the extension of a management order.
- The claimant complies with statutory requirements, even with minor procedural issues.
- The issue pertains to urgent necessity, allowing dispensation from consultation.
- The claimant challenges a defective notice of rent increase under relevant sections.
- The claimant is entitled to a new lease with the premium based on valuation.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The application for rent determination is submitted after the start date of the new rent.
- Raising an issue that could and should have been raised in an earlier application is considered an abuse of process.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided to extend the management order for a property for three more years.
Who was involved?
The lessee, the freeholder, the freeholder's managing agent, and the appointed manager were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to extend the management order because it ensured proper management of the property and the current manager agreed to continue managing it.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 sections 24(1) and 24(2)(b) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the current manager agreed to continue managing the property.
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 also be able to extend their management order if the current manager agrees and it ensures proper management of the property.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The comprehensive report on the management provided by the current manager was important.
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 seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.
