VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Extends Property Manager Order Until May 2025

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal extended the order appointing a property manager until May 2025 because the freehold of the property was still being acquired.

⚖️ Legal holding

An order appointing a property manager can be extended if there are unresolved issues regarding the property's freehold.

Topics

property managementfreehold acquisition

📖 Technical summary

The order appointing a manager for a property was extended until May 2025 due to unresolved freehold acquisition issues.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal extended the order appointing a property manager until May 2025 due to unresolved issues regarding the property's freehold acquisition.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference

:

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

CHI/29UN/LVM/2022/0004

Property

:

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[ADDRESS],

Applicant

Representative

Respondents

Representative

Appointed Manager

Type of Application

Tribunal Member(s)

Date of Hearing

Date of Decision

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

[COMPANY] (Flat 9)

[NAME] and [NAME] (Flat 12)

[NAME] (Flat 10)

[NAME]

[NAME] [NAME] [NAME] 1

[NAME] [NAME] 2

[COMPANY] 3

[NAME] [NAME] 4

[NAME] [NAME] (deceased)and [NAME] [NAME] 5

[NAME] 6

Alexander Taylor Flat 7

[NAME] [NAME] 8

[NAME] [NAME] [NAME] 10

[COMPANY] 11

The [NAME]

[NAME[NAME] to vary Management Order

Tribunal Judge H Lederman

Decision on Papers

18 December 2024

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

DECISION

1. The order of 2 September 2022 appointing [NAME] [NAME[NAME] as manager of the Property (“the Order”) shall continue in force until 22 May 2025 or such earlier date as may be determined upon an application to the Tribunal.

2. Any leaseholder, the Manager or the Crown, may apply to vary this Order or the order upon providing notice to each of the other parties to this Order.

3. The Applicants are directed to send a copy of this Order to all of the leaseholders, the manager and The Crown Estate at 1 St James’s Market London [POSTCODE] [EMAIL] within 14 day of the date when this Order was sent to the Applicants.

This is a formal order of the Tribunal which must be complied with by the parties.

The parties must comply with the Statement on Tribunal Rules and Procedure and the Guidance on PDF bundles which are enclosed with these directions (if not already provided).

Communications to the Tribunal MUST be made by email to [EMAIL]. All communications must clearly state the Case Number and address of the premises.

Background

1. The Applicants seek an order to vary an order appointing a manager of the Property made by the Tribunal on 2 September 2022 (“the Order”) in their application dated 7th May 2024. The Order appointed [NAME] [NAME[NAME] as manager of the Property for a period of two years from 22 May 2022 to 22 May 2024.

2. The Tribunal varied the Order on 15th May 2024 and on 3rd July 2024, on each date by making an interim order appointing [NAME[NAME] as manager of the Property until such time as the application to vary the Order has been determined by the Tribunal.

3. At the time of the Order in 2022 the freeholder of the property was [ADDRESS] Association Limited. The application form stated that [ADDRESS] Association Limited was dissolved and that ‘certain leaseholders are in the process of trying to acquire the freehold of the Property from the Crown’.

4. The Applicants are the leaseholders of Flats 9, 10 and 12 of the Property. [ADDRESS] Association Limited, the freeholder of the property was dissolved on 5 October 2021. The Respondents to these proceedings are intended to be the remaining leaseholders and the Crown.

5. On 3rd July 2024, the Tribunal directed the Applicants:

[redacted]

B. By 5pm on 7th August 2024 [NAME] [NAME] must confirm to the

Tribunal and all leaseholders whether he agreed to an extension of his appointment.

C By 5pm on 21st August 2024 all respondents should return the

attached form confirming whether or not they agree to the extension of the appointment of [NAME] [NAME].

D. If [NAME] [NAME] consents to the extension and no objections to

this are received the Tribunal will determine the matter on the papers. If [NAME] [NAME] does not consent and/or any objections are received the Tribunal shall issue further directions including listing the matter for a hearing.

6. On 9th July 2024 [NAME] [COUNSEL] the Applicants’ representative wrote to the Tribunal as follows:

“I can confirm that pursuant to Direction 8 copies of the application, [NAME] [NAME] witness statement and the Directions were served upon the Manager and all leaseholders before 5.00pm on 17 July 2024.”

7. [NAME] [NAME] has previously exhibited evidence that [ADDRESS] Freehold Limited (no 15767714) (“SCMF”) was incorporated on 7th June 2024 by some of the Leaseholders to acquire the freehold from the Crown (statement 11th June 2024). The Crown previously disclaimed any interest and title in the Property by notice under section 1013 of the Companies Act 2006 on 3rd June 2024.

8. In his statement of 11th June 2024 [NAME] [NAME] anticipated that the acquisition of the property from the Crown “may take until May 2025 to complete but it is hoped that the acquisition will take place sooner than that”.

9. No objections to the variation of the management order have been received from any of the leaseholders.

10. A statement from [NAME[NAME] the manager, of 6th August 2024 confirms:

“3. I have had sight of the Tribunal Directions dated 3 July 2024.

4. Pursuant to Direction 9, I confirm that I agree to an extension of my appointment.

5. I confirm that a copy of this witness statement has been sent to all leaseholders.”

11. Only 2 forms from leaseholders of the Property have been received. One dated 6th August 2024 from [NAME[NAME] 6. He agrees with the application. A second from [NAME] of [COMPANY] for Flat 3 dated 16th July 2024 has also been received. [NAME] records show this company was known as [COMPANY] ([COMPANY]) as from September 2024.

12. The leaseholders of Flat 3 were previously described as [NAME[NAME] and [NAME[NAME] in the order made on 2nd September 2022. It is assumed that [COMPANY] ([COMPANY]) is now the registered proprietor of Flat 3.

13. It appears that no party objects to the extension of the order appointing [NAME] [NAME]. Without an extension, no one will be legally responsible for the management of the Property until the question of ownership of the freehold is resolved.

14. It appears from [NAME] records that [NAME] and [COMPANY] are associated with [COMPANY] (07753271) trading as [NAME] managing agents.

15. It is just and convenient to extend the Order until 22nd May 2025. By that time it should be known whether the proposal of SCMF to acquire the freehold will complete and if so when.

16. If property disclaimed by the Crown consists of freehold land, the freehold title will be extinguished on disclaimer and the property will escheat to the Crown Estate. This means it is necessary for the Crown Estate to be served with these proceedings: see https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about-us/faqs.

H Lederman Tribunal Judge

18 December 2024

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 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

  • Unresolved issues regarding the property's freehold exist.
  • The landlord consents to extending the property manager's term.
  • The property requires professional management.
  • Service charges are reasonable if they align with the lease and are of a just standard.
  • It is just and convenient to extend 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 extend the order appointing a property manager until May 2025.

Who was involved?

Leaseholders, the manager, and the Crown Estate were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to extend the order because the freehold of the property was still being acquired.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the decision.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the need for continued management of the property while the freehold was being acquired.

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 have their management order extended if there are unresolved issues regarding the property's freehold.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Witness statements and previous orders were considered important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases 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.