First-tier Tribunal Extends Property Management Term and Increases Fee
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal extended the term of a Management Order and increased the annual fee for property management services. This decision was made to ensure proper management of the property and address ongoing issues.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tribunal may vary a Management Order if it is just and convenient to do so, considering the circumstances that led to the original order.
📖 What the law says
The appropriate tribunal can appoint a manager to handle the management of certain premises if they find it just and convenient to do so, based on the circumstances of the case.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal varied the Management Order to extend the term and increase the annual fee for management services.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tribunal varied the Management Order dated 19 March 2020, extending it to 18 March 2026 and increasing the annual fee to £400 per flat. The tribunal considered the need for effective management of the property and the lack of involvement from the freeholders.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AN/LVM/2023/0003 Property : 384 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] manager)
Representative : In person Respondents : [redacted] (2) Ms [NAME], Mr [NAME] S and Ms [NAME] J [COUNSEL], [NAME] ([NAME]) Representative : N/A The Manager : [NAME] [NAME] Tribunal members : Judge [NAME] of Order : 7 June 2023
DECISION & MANAGEMENT ORDER (Variation)
2
The tribunal’s summary decision
(1.) The tribunal varies the Management Order dated 19 March 2020 and extends it to 18 March 2026.
(2.) The tribunal varies the Management Order dated 19 March 2020 and substitutes the sum of £400 for the previously payable £250 as the fee payable to the manager per annum by each lessee.
The [NAME]
1. The applicant is the tribunal appointed manager who seeks a variation of the Management Order dated 19 March 2020 pursuant to section 24(9) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’).
The background
2. In a decision dated 19 March 2020, the tribunal determined it was appropriate to appoint the applicant as the manager of the subject property situate at 384 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the premises). The appointment was made for a period of three years with effect from 19 March 2020. In directions dated 9 March 2023, provision was made for the extension of the Management Order pending the tribunal’s determination of the [NAME] and an interim order was made extending the Management Order under s.24(2)(b) of the 1987 Act.
3. The premises comprise a Victorian terraced house with commercial shop premises on the ground and basement floors and three residential units above. The freeholders of the premises continue to play no active part in the upkeep of the building although indicated orally to Ms [NAME] they did not oppose her continued appointment. There is also a head leaseholder Ms [NAME] who is missing and who has played no active role in this [NAME].
4. In the current [NAME], Ms [NAME] relied upon a statement in support of her [NAME] dated 24 April 2023, which stated that the aspects of health, safety and fire regulation that required attention have been attended to during the period of her management of the premises. However, since 2020 there have been reports of water ingress to the premises, which on investigation showed significant works are required to remedy the problem that has become increasingly extensive and would be most effectively remedied were she to remain the tribunal appointed manager.
3
5. The tribunal was informed that the leases of the residential properties did not make provision for the collection of a reserve fund. However, the Management Order of 19 March 2020 made provision for the collection of such a fund and stated under the paragraph headed ‘Schedule of Functions and Services – Service Charge’ that the manager may:
(ii) Demand and collect service charges (including contributions to a sinking fund), insurance premiums and any other payment due from the lessees.
6. Therefore, the tribunal would expect the manager to utilise this power to facilitate the carrying out of the proposed major works to remedy the water ingress into the premises.
The hearing
7. An oral hearing of the [NAME] was held by video on 7 June 2023 at which Ms [NAME] represented herself. Ms [NAME] attended by telephone but had already indicated in writing to the tribunal that she supported the [NAME]. No other written representations were received from the respondents despite the tribunal’s directions requiring them to indicate whether they objected to the [NAME] and to state the reasons why by 12 May 2023.
8. Although the lessee of the first floor flat Ms [NAME] made several attempts to join the video hearing, she could not be seen or heard by the tribunal despite [NAME] several attempts to connect electronically with the details provided to her by the tribunal. However in an email to the tribunal after the conclusion of the hearing, Ms [NAME] wrote:
I am very sorry, I was not able to join it, but I am glad to say I was able to follow the case, I do object to the decision, this administrator, has done a pesimo (sic) job, the few repairs she has organise, are done in a poor quality.
We have serious problems with damp, and she has not organised or approached the problems. I do object to her new extension.
9. As well as hearing Ms [NAME] oral evidence, the tribunal considered her written evidence which set out the measures she had taken to manage the premises. The tribunal was also provided with a report and a number of photographs showing the extent and likely cause of the water ingress to the premises which required remedial works Ms [NAME] was proposing to have carried out if the Management Order was varied.
,
4
The tribunal’s decision
10. The tribunal considers it appropriate to vary the Management Order dated 19 March 2020 in the following terms:
MANAGEMENT ORDER OF 19 MARCH 2020 (VARIED ON 7 APRIL 2023)
Duration
(i) The Management Order is varied and extended to 18 March 2026.
Fees
(ii) Fees for the abovementioned management services will be a basic fee of £250 £400 per annum per flat. Those services to include the services set out in the Service Charge Residential Management Code published by the RICS
Reasons for the tribunal’s decision
11. In [NAME] its decision the tribunal had regard to section 24(9A) of the 1987 Act which states:
The tribunal shall not vary or discharge an order under subsection (9) on the [NAME] of any relevant person 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.
12. The tribunal is concerned that in the absence of a manager the ongoing problems of water ingress will not be effectively addressed in a timely manner or at all in light of the [NAME]’s continued absence of involvement in the management and maintenance of the premises. The tribunal is satisfied the Manager has addressed the problems identified by the tribunal that made the Management Order dated 19 March 2020. The tribunal is also satisfied the continuation of the appointment of a manager will not result in a recurrence of the circumstances which led to the order being made on 19 March 2020.
13. Although Ms [NAME] sought to object to Ms [NAME] continued appointment, she had not put these objections in writing as directed or
5
provided any evidence of these assertions or put forward any proposals for an alternative manager or solution to the water ingress.
14. Therefore, in the absence of any substantial objection to the [NAME] by the [NAME] and the support of it by the freeholders and the the leaseholder Ms [NAME], the tribunal considers it is just and convenient to vary the Management Order of 19 March 2020 as sought.
Name: Judge Tagliavini
Date: 7 June 2023
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 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Extends Property Manager's Term and Increases Fees
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Varies Management Order
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Extends Management Order for Residential Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Varies Management Order for Denmark Mansions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Extends Management Order for Two Years
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal varies management order, appoints new manager
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Extends Manager's Appointment for Two Years
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Appoints New Manager Under Landlord and Tenant Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Extends Manager's Appointment Until 2025
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Extends Property Manager’s Appointment Until 2027
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Challenges Service Charges Payability Under Landlord and Tenant Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Appoints New Manager for Mismanaged Property
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
- All parties agree to the extension of a property manager's term without additional conditions.
- A tenant can challenge the payability of service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
- A tribunal varies a management order if it is just and convenient to do so.
- A manager's appointment can be extended if the current management is effective and necessary.
- A manager with the functions of a receiver can be appointed to enforce unpaid service charges and manage fire safety works.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided cases.)
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 the Management Order and increased the annual fee for property management services.
Who was involved?
The applicant, the tribunal-appointed manager, and the leaseholders were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to extend the term and increase the fee because it was deemed necessary for proper management of the property.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Section 24(9A) was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the need for effective management of the property and addressing ongoing issues.
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 should consider the effectiveness of their property management and seek variations to management orders if necessary.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the need for effective management and addressing ongoing issues was presented.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions 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 involving property management.
