First-tier Tribunal Rejects Application for Court-Appointed Manager

OUTCOME: Refused

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case reference : LON/00AN/LAM/2022/0021

Property : [NAME] [RESPONDENT], London [POSTCODE]

Applicants : [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

Type of [NAME] : Appointment of a manager, section 24 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

Tribunal members : [NAME] [NAME] of Hearing and Venue : 6 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of Decision : 18 May 2023

DECISION

DECISION

1. The [NAME] for appointment of a court-appointed manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 is REFUSED.

REASONS

BACKGROUND

2. The Applicant seeks an order appointing [APPELLANT] [NAME] of [COMPANY] as a court-appointed manager of the property at [NAME] [RESPONDENT], London [POSTCODE] under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (the “Act”). A draft management order was supplied.

3. A preliminary notice under section [NAME] of the Act was served on the Respondent on 25 July 2022.

4. Directions were issued on 9 January 2023, amended 30 January 2023.

5. The property comprises a converted Victorian mid-terraced house in Fulham on originally 2 and latterly 3 storeys. The applicants hold a lease of the ground floor flat, having moved in in 2016. The respondents hold a lease of the first floor flat. They also acquired the freehold which is held in [RESPONDENT] of which they are sole directors. As persons controlling the freehold, the respondents have added an additional storey. It is common ground that prior to the respondents acquiring the property it had been neglected for many years. This is a simple property of only two flats of traditional construction under mainly pitched roofs, without a lift, communal heating or hot water systems.

6. The Tribunal did not consider that it was necessary to inspect the property.

7. Subsequent to their personal and [COMPANY] acquisition, relations between the parties deteriorated.

THE HEARING

8. Ms [NAME] represented herself and [NAME] [COUNSEL]. [NAME] [COUNSEL], Counsel represented the respondents.

9. As a preliminary matter, the respondents objected to the inclusion of covert audio recordings made by the applicants said to demonstrate noise nuisance caused by the respondents. The Tribunal having heard further from the parties refused to admit these or related transcripts into [NAME] for the following reasons: (i) there was no provision in the directions allowing audio [NAME] to be admitted and no specific direction had been sought (ii) these recordings were made covertly against a neighbour in their home, which in the Tribunal’s judgment breached the rights to privacy of the respondent directors and (iii) the Tribunal had no information as to the technical merits of the recordings so they would be of limited probative value. Proceedings were delayed whilst the section [NAME] notice was provided by the applicants as this was omitted from the applicants bundle. This also omitted the [NAME] form and directions.

THE LAW

10. The [NAME] legislation is set out in the legal annex below.

THE LEASES

Ground Floor and basement

11. The lease of the ground floor and basement is dated 17 July 2006 (following a lease renewal) for a term of 189 years from 1 January 1985. The original lease was varied by a deed of variation dated 12 January 1989. The property is defined in the First Schedule. Under clause 6(1) the landlord covenants to give quiet enjoyment. By clause 6(3), the landlord covenants “to provide the works and other functions and operations referred to in the Fourth Schedule…”

12. By Para 1(a) of the Fourth Schedule the tenant is liable for “50% of the maintenance expenses provided that should the building be altered by way of extension additional other similar works or incorporation with other premises the tenant’s proportion may be recalculated by the landlord’s surveyor and in the event of such recalculation shall be such amended proportion…”

13. By Para 1(b) of the Fourth Schedule, ““the maintenance expenses” are the aggregate of such of the costs expenses fees outgoings and other money specified in Part 2 of [Schedule Four]… and shall at the landlord’s discretion include a sum or sums of money by way of reasonable provision for anticipated expenditure in respect of the maintenance expenses which the landlord may in its discretion allocate to a service year and consider fair and reasonable in the circumstances.”

14. The service charge year is 12 months ending 31 December. By paragraph 2(a) of the Fourth Schedule, “The landlord will…on or about the end of each maintenance year make and notify in writing to the tenant an estimate of the maintenance expenses to be incurred or paid during the next maintenance year . By Para 2(b) “The tenant shall pay the tenant’s proportion of the estimated maintenance expenses by equal instalments in advance on the usual quarter days in each year. The first such payment shall be payable within seven days of the notification to the tenant of the amount thereof…” By clause 2(c) “…the landlord will prepare and deliver to the tenant a statement of the maintenance expenses for that service year and the sum payable by the tenant and the tenant will within fourteen days of the delivery of such statement pay to the landlord any balance shown by such statement to be due from the tenant…and in the event of the aggregate amount so paid by the tenant exceeding the tenant’s proportion of the maintenance expenses for that service year the landlord shall credit the amount of any excess by way of set-off against the next instalment or instalments due from the tenant on account…”

15. By Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule, “the maintenance expenses comprise all reasonable and proper costs charges commissions premiums fees interest and expenses incurred paid or provided for: By the landlord pursuant to clause 6(3) of the lease, in connection with or relating to inspecting cleaning draining emptying operating lighting decorating repairing maintaining and where requisite renewing and rebuilding the structure and the exterior (including all window frames) of the building...”

16. By clause 6(4) the landlord covenants “if reasonably required so to do by the tenant to enforce such covenants similar to those contained in clause 5 of this deed as are contained in any lease of the building the tenant: (a) indemnifying the landlord against all costs and expenses actually incurred by the landlord in so doing and (b) providing such security respect of such costs and expenses as the landlord shall reasonably and properly require.”

First floor flat

17. The lease of the first-floor flat is dated 14 February 2020 and grants the property for 999 years from 1 January 1985. The demise includes the loft/roof space, flat roof and all additions and improvements to the premises. By Para 8 of Part II of the Second Schedule, the tenant has the right to convert the loft/ roof space into habitable rooms and the roof space into a roof terrace.

18. By the Fifth Schedule, the landlord covenants inter alia “to inspect maintain repair redecorate and wherever reasonably necessary …maintain repair rebuild or renew all those parts of the Retained Premises described in the First Schedule, …the Common Parts… [and] boundary fences”.

19. The regulations on the part of the tenant are set out in the Sixth Schedule By paragraph 1 the tenant covenants “not to do or permit to be done… any act to the disturbance damage or annoyance of the Landlord or the owners tenants or occupiers of the Other Flat…”. By Paragraph 8, the tenant covenants “to keep all floors in the premises covered with suitable materials save for the kitchen and the bathroom so as to prevent the penetration of sound into the other flat.”

THE APPLICANTS’ CASE

The Proposed Manager

20. The applicants proposed as manager [NAME] [NAME] [NAME], who attended the hearing having given a witness statement. Both parties agreed that he would be a suitable appointee. He has previously been appointed by the Tribunal in relation to several other cases. The Tribunal is satisfied that he would have been a suitable manager.

The [NAME]

21. The Notice gave the respondents 28 days to remedy matters. From the grounds in the Notice the issues for the Tribunal are as follows:

i. Whether the respondents are in breach of covenants to repair the property;

ii. Whether service charges are excessive;

iii. Whether the [directors of] the respondent in their capacity as [NAME] are in breach of covenant by not having complied with the terms of their lease to have in place suitable floor coverings;

iv. Whether the respondents are in breach of the Code of Practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993;

v. Whether the Landlords have failed to comply with local council planning regulations, having installed windows in the front elevation of the first floor flat of the Property (the “First Floor Flat”) in breach of section 57(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

[NAME]. In summary, the grounds were particularised as follows:

Repair and maintenance

23. The Landlords have refused to replace the defective front bay windows of the Ground Floor Flat, which was reported by the Applicants on 8 April 2021 and further brought to the Landlords’ attention on 26 January 2022 and 8 May 2022. The replacement of the windows was deemed urgent by a chartered surveyor from London Home Surveys (the “Surveyor”), who surveyed the Ground Floor Flat in January 2021, and observed that the timber frames were degraded, and the windows could not be opened for ventilation purposes, resulting in a build-up of condensation and black mould on the inside of the windows. The Landlords have refused to give the Applicants permission for the front bay windows to be replaced until they have paid unreasonable service charges. They have failed to uphold the terms of the Lease by charging the tenants of both the Ground Floor Flat and the First Floor Flat for external work to be carried out on the Property. The Landlords have said that the Applicants will have to pay the full replacement cost of the windows without any contribution from the tenants of the First Floor Flat. In accordance with Paragraph 1 of the Fourth Schedule of the 1990 Deed of Variation incorporated into the Lease and the Seventh Schedule of the Lease of the First Floor Flat, the tenants are required to pay a proportion of 50% towards any maintenance expenses. Further, the Landlords are in breach of the repairing obligations owed to the tenants under the terms of the 1990 Deed of Variation pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Landlord’s Covenant, which refers to the works outlined in paragraph 2 of Part II of the Fourth Schedule [landlord repairing obligations].

Unreasonable service charges

24. The Landlords have demanded payment for UPVC windows and a balcony door which was fitted to the front elevation of the First Floor Flat in breach of applicable planning regulations. They have sought to recover the full cost of UPVC windows purchased for the Ground Floor Flat, which cannot be installed because the planning [NAME] was declined. The expenditure for the UPVC windows was not properly incurred, and the service is therefore not of a reasonable standard. It was the Landlords’ duty to check the planning status of the windows before placing the order, and they therefore have no right to claim the cost from the applicants.

25. The Landlords have demanded a management fee of 15%. The Landlords have not hired a managing agent and are managing the Property themselves without any overheads such as staffing costs or office rents. The Landlords are not entitled to recover a management fee of 15% as an arbitrary figure, as they have failed to demonstrate that they have incurred any costs under paragraph 6 of Part II of the Fourth Schedule of the 1990 Deed of Variation. These charges are not reasonable both under the terms of the Lease and the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1985. Further, these charges do not comply with the RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code, [“the Code”] which has been approved by the Secretary of State under Section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. Part 2.3 of the Code of Practice states that ‘charges should be appropriate to the task and should be quoted as a fixed fee rather than as a percentage of outgoings or income.’

26. The standard of the services provided by the Landlord has been unreasonable. The Landlords have made many mistakes because they are not conversant with the terms of the Lease and the statutory and regulatory requirements concerning service charge payments. They demanded ground rents of £150 from the Applicants when the Lease specifies a peppercorn. They raised service charges for improvements to the front of the Property despite these costs being outside of the remit of the service charge provisions in the Lease.

27. The Landlords’ lack of experience and understanding of their obligations has meant that the Applicants have incurred unnecessary legal fees of £6,285. The Landlords have ignored advice from the Applicants’ solicitor and have continued to act in contravention of their obligations under the terms of the Lease and under statute. They have been unwilling to appoint a [COMPANY]. The unreasonable and incompetent management of the Property is adversely affecting the value of the Applicants’ interest in the Property.

28. The Applicants intend to make a cost order to the Tribunal under Rule 13 (1) as their legal expenses have arisen due to the “improper” and “unreasonable” behaviour of the Landlords. It is therefore reasonable for the Applicants to be compensated for these wasted costs.

The Landlords are in breach of the Code of Practice as the directors of

the [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY]. In Part 3.1 of the Code of Practice, it states that managers of residential buildings should have in place ‘effective and fair procedures for dealing responsibly with management matters.’ The Landlords’ management company has failed to uphold the terms of the Lease of the First Floor Flat when it applies to the Landlords in their capacity as tenants. The tenants of the First Floor Flat are in breach of the Sixth Schedule of their lease. The Sixth Schedule sets out the Regulations on the part of the tenant, which include the obligation in paragraph 8 to keep all floors in the first floor flat covered with suitable materials save for the kitchen and the bathroom, to prevent the penetration of sound to the other flat owned by the Applicants. The tenants of the First Floor Flat have taken up the carpets on the stairs and landing, which has increased the transmission of sound between the Ground Floor Flat and the First Floor Flat.

30. Further, the Landlords allowed the tenants of the First Floor Flat to leave scaffolding in the Applicants’ Garden for nine months and ignored emails requesting details of when it would be removed. The Landlords have failed to ensure that the Applicants were compensated when the Ground Floor Flat was damaged by major works taking place in the First Floor Flat or to ensure that the Applicants had reasonable living conditions whilst the work was taking place, given that the communal areas of the Property were covered in dust and debris from September 2021 through to January 2022, when no attempt was made by the tenants of the First Floor Flat or their workmen to clean up the building materials.

31. Part 3.2 of the Code specifies that landlords undertaking a management function must observe the terms of the Lease and comply with the law. The Landlords have fitted windows and a door to the first-floor front elevation despite the planning officer at the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham having refused to give permission for this work to take place. They did not consult with the Applicants before installing the windows, who may be liable to contribute towards the replacement cost of the windows and door if the council issues an enforcement [notice].

32. The unauthorised windows and door of the First Floor Flat are a liability against the applicants’ property, which could impact on the value of the Ground Floor Flat, given that a prospective buyer would seek compensation for the projected cost of replacing them. Further, the Landlords put increasing pressure on the Applicants to fit the windows in the front elevation of the Ground Floor Flat in direct defiance of the Council’s decision in emails dated 2 December 2021, 15 December 2021, and 21 January 2022. If the Applicants had agreed to the Landlord’s request, then they would have been in breach of paragraph 16(a) of the Tenant’s Covenant in the 1990 Deed of Variation of the Lease, which states that the tenant must not ‘suffer to be done or omitted anything in contravention of the enactments for the time being in force relating to planning control and development’.

33. Part 3.4 of the Code of Practice requires residential managers to respond promptly and suitably to reasonable requests from tenants [NAME] to the management of the property. The Applicants have not received a response to a letter dated 8 May 2022 which requested that the urgent work on the windows was addressed and outlined the effect of the living conditions on the Applicants’ health.

34. Part 3.9 of the Code of Practice states that the management company cannot do anything that is likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of residential occupiers. Further, Part 3.28 specifies that the Landlord cannot harass tenants as it is a criminal offence contrary to Section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (as amended by Section 29(2) of the Housing Act of 1988), which states in Part 3 that if [NAME] ‘does acts [likely] to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a residence, he shall be guilty of an offence’.

35. The Landlord’s unlawful demands for money, as well as threatening court action (in an email dated 18 February 2022), amount to unwanted conduct, if not harassment, which has caused the Applicants’ undue stress and anxiety. The Landlord’s conduct also amounts to a breach of Clause 6.1 of the Lease, under which the Applicants have the right to peaceably hold and enjoy the Ground Floor Flat throughout the term without any interruption by the Landlords.

Remedies Sought

36. The remedies sought for the alleged breaches were as follows:

a. To appoint a professional managing agent

b. For the Managing Agent to address the urgent work on the bay windows of the Ground Floor Flat.

c. In respect of the breach of the planning permission, for the Managing Agent to remove the unauthorised windows and door from the First Floor Flat and replace them with planning compliant timber fittings.

d. In respect of the unreasonable service charges requested, for the Managing Agent to issue a revised statement of anticipated expenditure for the proper cost of the urgent work to the front bay windows in the Ground Floor Flat and to remove the unreasonable and unlawful management fees demanded by the Landlord.

e. In respect of the wasted costs incurred by the Applicants on legal fees, for the Landlords to fully reimburse the Applicants of such costs.

f. In respect of the damage to the Ground Floor Flat caused by the tenants of the First Floor Flat, that the Applicants are fully compensated either by the tenants’ contractors or the Landlord’s insurers.

g. In respect of the noise nuisance, to uphold the terms of the lease for the First Floor Flat by ensuring that suitable floor coverings are installed and maintained to minimise the transmission of sound between the First Floor Flat and the Ground Floor Flat. Alternatively, to provide access for the Applicants to view that carpets have been laid throughout the First Floor Flat.

Ms [NAME] [NAME]

37. Miss [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] produced a lengthy joint witness statement dated 13 February 2023, but it was agreed by all parties that Miss [NAME] would give [NAME] on behalf of both applicants. The witness statement was verified with a statement of truth by both applicants. Ms [NAME] [NAME] may be summarised as follows. The applicants bought the ground floor flat in August 2016 for £680,000. The respondent is in breach of its repairing obligations because the exterior of the ground floor has not been maintained and the degraded timber front windows have not been repaired or replaced although this essential work was reported in April 2021. The respondent has mainly undertaken work on the upper parts of the building where its directors have a lease of the flat. This included replacing all the first-floor windows and painting the upper part of the building. The respondent purchased UPVC windows for the front bay but has not installed them as the UPVC windows are not compliant in planning terms. Appointment of a manager would address historic neglect and ensure that the necessary planning permission is in place. This work is urgent.

38. Service charge demands are unreasonable. The respondent directors have no experience of residential management. The directors demanded service charges for improvements which are outside the scope of the service charge provisions and a ground rent, when none is payable. They have also sought management fees of 15% which does not comply with the RICS service charge Code.

39. The Respondent is in breach of part 3.1 of the code as the [COMPANY] does not have in place effective and fair procedures for dealing responsibly with management matters. The directors have a conflict-of-interest as they also hold a lease of the first floor flat. The directors in their capacity as lessees made a decision to replace carpets with hardwood flooring which has increased sound transmission. This is affecting Ms [NAME] sleep and mental well-being. The directors claim that there is sound insulation and that the flooring is appropriate, which is incorrect. The directors failed to act when the ground floor flat was damaged by major works in the first floor flat and were unwilling to intervene when scaffolding was left in the garden for more than nine months. The manager needs to act independently with the power to enforce the clauses of the lease of the first floor flat.

40. The respondent has not complied with local planning regulations. They fitted UPVC windows and a balcony door to the front elevation of the first floor flat without planning permission, in breach of section 57 of the Town & Country planning act 1990.

41. The Respondent has not replied promptly to correspondence in relation to management the property. The respondent had not made provision for management of the building where both directors are away overseas.

42. The applicants obtained a report from [NAME] [NAME] of 12 January 2021 in which he listed urgent external work necessary to be carried out to the applicants flat. This was sent to the respondent’s predecessor in title Ms [RESPONDENT] who was also then sole director of the management company. Ms [NAME] took no action. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and [RESPONDENT] became directors of the respondent on 10 March 2021. The new directors agreed to implement the surveyor’s recommendations. All parties agreed that they would have UPVC windows and doors in both flats to keep down the costs. The directors requested that the applicants pay 50% towards the cost upfront in accordance with the lease. The applicants expected that the respondents would check whether planning permission was required for the windows.

43. The planning officer was reluctant to approve the applications. Relations with the directors became strained after September 2021 when they started major works on the first floor flat in their capacity as tenants, including creating a loft conversion in the roof. They moved out of the flat whilst the work was being carried out, but the applicants had to put up with noise and disruption. There was dust in the hallway and the scaffolding was left for an excessive period in the garden. The works also caused damage in the ground floor flat in the form of cracks in the kitchen ceiling and water ingress. The directors did not make good the damage and did not make an insurance claim.

44. In November 2021, the planning officer refused consent for replacement UPVC windows to be fitted in the front elevation although permission was granted at the rear of the property. The directors suggested that both parties removed the front windows from their respective planning applications and fitted UPVC windows which had already been purchased in the front elevation anyway. The applicants refused to do this because it would be a deliberate breach of planning regulations. In December 2021, the directors were advised that they did not need planning permission to fit the front UPVC windows as they were entitled to under permitted development rights. If the applicants wish to fit timber frame windows the respondents would not contribute to the costs in their capacity as lessees.

45. The Respondents ought to have taken legal advice. The applicants were providing legal advice to the respondents at their own expense which would not be the case if a [COMPANY] was acting which would have a legal department. The Respondents offered on a without prejudice basis to subtract the cost of the UPVC widows from timber framed windows if the council enforced planning control. However, the applicants were still concerned that this might place them in breach of clause 16 (a) “that the tenant must not suffer to be done or omitted anything in contravention of the enactments for the time being in force relating to planning control and development”.

46. The applicants received a service charge demand on 23 December 2021 for £13,896 being a service charge 2021 reconciliation and the service charge notice for 2022. The latter includes a £1000 charge on account for a surveyor to check the repositioning of the applicants’ bathroom window as part of a licence to alter. The Respondents had previously said that a surveyor was not required. The respondents have been reluctant to re-apportion service charges to reflect the alterations to the first floor flat. They are only willing to do so once the applicants have paid for the schedule of works in the service charge notice the 2022. The applicants look to the manager to ensure service charges are reapportioned fairly.

47. The respondent directors installed hardwood flooring in the hallway and stairs of the upper flat as shown on photograph JTC Q19. This causes significant disturbance. The applicants can hear conversations taking place in the flat above.

48. Following service of the section [NAME] notice on 25 July 2022, the directors have not taken steps to remedy most of the issues set out in the fourth schedule. The noise nuisance has intensified. They have made unpleasant comments. The applicants have no peace in their home.

49. Since autumn 2021, direct email communication has become intolerable for the applicants and in a letter dated 10 February 2022 they directed that all correspondence be sent to their solicitor. The applicant did not retain the phone number of the directors.

THE RESPONDENT’S CASE

50. Counsel prepared a skeleton argument to which the Tribunal’s had regard. He raised a point of law that the 28 days given to comply with the section [NAME] notice was unreasonably short.

[NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME]

51. Both directors of the respondent, [NAME] [RESPONDENT], and Ms [RESPONDENT], prepared a statement which although informal was in the nature of witness statement. The Tribunal indicated that it would admit this statement as a witness statement. The parties agreed that one witness for the respondent would give [NAME] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] did so. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] verified verbally that the statement was true.

52. [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] may be summarised as follows. When the property was acquired in March and April 2021 the substantial amount of work was required. The replacement ground floor windows were not installed, at the request of the applicants. Service charge demands are not unreasonable and unlawful and there has been no separate [NAME] at any time to the Tribunal to determine the reasonableness of service charges. There is no obligation on the respondents to reimburse legal costs incurred by the applicants. The applicants refused to allow the respondents’ contractors to fix minimal damage caused to the property as a result of building works. Further, 28 days to comply with the provisions in the notice was not a reasonable amount of time.

53. The UVPC windows were agreed by both parties in May 2021. The applicants nominated a supplier they had used before, [COMPANY] and they were appointed. The quotation was agreed with the applicants. As a result of an unrelated decision by the applicants to move the position of a bathroom window, which was subject to a licence to alter, the applicants learnt that planning permission for this was required. Subsequently there were communications with the local planning authority which expressed divergent views as to whether or not planning permission would be required for the UPVC windows (as opposed to timber framed windows) to the front elevation. Ultimately the local planning authority agreed that the installation could take place. In any event, planning permission is not required in the ground floor lease. The respondents also offered to reimburse the costs of UPVC windows including installation in the event that the local planning authority required their removal. The 2022 estimated costs were withdrawn and would be considered further.

54. After completing the purchase of the freehold in March 2021, the respondents carried out most of the work addressed by the applicant’s surveyor. The only work not carried out was consequential on installation of the ground floor UPVC windows.

55. The lease entitles the freeholder to charge a management fee. The respondents admit they have made some errors in miscalculating the ground rent. Certain items have been mis-labelled as improvements whereas they were in fact repairs.

56. Noise nuisance is not a ground to appoint a property manager. The first-floor bedrooms are carpeted, and the bathroom has tiles. Noise cancelling insulation was installed throughout the property. The floorboards in the corridor and stairs at first floor level had been covered and respondents have placed additional rugs to the landing. There was some disruption during the first-floor loft conversion which lasted about nine months. The respondents offered to remediate cracks in the ground floor flat, but the applicants refused.

57. The respondents have the right to perform work to their flat [in their capacity as lessees]. The applicants refused to speak to the respondents in person and requested communication by their solicitor and in writing only. The respondents do not accept that there is a conflict-of-interest in their dual role in the property. As to service charge accounts, the respondents will perform reconciliations and refund [NAME] any monies received which were unspent. As to reapportionment of service charges, the building work to the first-floor flat is not fully completed. No service charges have been raised since the extension. The applicants refused to contribute 50% of the surveyor’s fee to carry out a re-apportionment. The respondents have a [NAME] who can look after the property when the respondents are away.

FINDINGS

58. In exercising its discretion, the Tribunal must take into account that the [NAME] of a management order deprives the landlord of one of its important legal rights namely management of its property. A management order also imposes additional costs on all lessees. The manager is entitled to seek further directions from the Tribunal at any time with all such [NAME] and appearance costs payable by the lessees. Such costs can be very significant. From the draft management order the manager would be entitled to bring proceedings in the County Court and the Tribunal risking further costs still. A management order must also be registered as a land charge against the freehold title. The Tribunal therefore considers that a management order should only be made where it is likely to remedy matters in issue and where it is proportionate. In this case, there are no prior findings by a court or tribunal in relation to any of the asserted grounds.

Validity of the [NAME]

59. This was challenged on the ground that 28 days was insufficient time to remedy the matters complained of. The Tribunal pointed out to counsel that section 24(7) entitles the Tribunal to make an Order notwithstanding that that is so. The Tribunal finds that this period was too short in relation to the window installation and other alleged disrepairs but sufficient in respect of other grounds. Had the Tribunal decided to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants it would have relied on section 24(7), to the extent necessary.

Repair and maintenance

60. The main issue relates to the replacement of the UPVC front windows in the applicants flat. The Tribunal finds that the real reason for the failure of replacement is refusal by the applicants to allow the work to be carried out. The Tribunal finds that the responsibility for specifying those works lay with the respondent, and the applicants were not entitled to refuse installation on the grounds that planning permission had not been granted. As expressed by Lord [NAME] in the Supreme Court in [APPELLANT] (Appellant) v [NAME] (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 14, para 45 “it is the landlord who decides what works need to be done, when they are to be done, who they are to be done by, and what amount is to be paid for them.”

61. The applicants were consulted and agreed on a course of action including the proposal to use [COMPANY] whom the applicants had themselves proposed. The Tribunal considers that that consultation required the applicants to consider all aspects of the matter, including town planning considerations. It follows that the applicants were equally responsible for investigating planning if that was in issue. Although inconsistent positions were advanced by planning officers, no formal refusal of planning permission ever occurred nor was any enforcement notice served. Subsequently it has emerged in correspondence between the local planning authority and respondents that the proposed windows do comply with the planning authority’s requirements. In relation to paragraph 16(a) of the lease, the landlord would be estopped from enforcing a covenant relating to possible breach of planning control by the tenant in relation to an act carried out by the landlord.

62. The other breaches of repair affecting the common parts appear to be deterioration to a first-floor windowsill at the rear of the property and area around an emergent boiler flue. The Tribunal finds that these are disrepairs but minor in nature. The Tribunal prefers the [NAME] of the respondents in relation to why disrepair in the applicants’ flat consequent to the first-floor building work was not remedied.

63. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the section [NAME] ground is made out, but only to a very limited extent. It further finds that it is not just and convenient to make an order in relation to this ground, because the applicants are responsible for the most important disrepairs remaining unremedied.

Unreasonable service charges

64. In relation to the landlord’s management fee of 15%, the lease provides (Fourth Sch Part 2 Para 6) that the landlord is entitled to charge a management fee where no professional managing agent is appointed. The landlords are not required under the terms of the lease to appoint a professional managing agent. The annual management fee should be distinguished from fees incurred in relation to major works (see 3.4 and 3.5 of the Code). Annual management fees are normally assessed on an amount per flat per annum. The Tribunal would expect a fee of up to £400 (plus VAT) per flat per annum appropriate in relation to the subject property, but this is not a finding under s27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“1985 Act”). In relation to major works, where section 20 procedures are followed, landlords are entitled to charge an additional amount. Managing agents typically charge in the region of 5%. In this case, section 20 notices were not served in relation to the expenditure. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the management fees of £1,146.90 for 2021 and estimated management cost of £1,257.86 for 2022 were unreasonably high.

65. It is unnecessary for the Tribunal to comment further in relation to the quality of the management service because it is not [NAME] a finding as to reasonableness and payability under section 27A of the Landlord and 1985 Act.

66. The Tribunal finds the service charge 2021 reconciliation and estimated costs for 2002 to maintenance year to be unclear documents. These should set out the full amounts for the building and then state the apportionment to each flat. However, it appears that the stated amounts relate only to the portion payable by the ground floor flat. It finds reference to the improvements to be incorrect as the lease does not allow improvements although it should be borne in mind that as a matter of law some degree of improvement may be implicit when repairs are being carried out. It does not appear that the costs of the replacement windows are being challenged (and the Applicants proposed the contractors) but in any event the Tribunal finds that these costs are not unreasonably high.

67. The Tribunal finds that the fees in relation to the licence to alter are as a matter of law administration charges and not service charges. They are outside the service charge mechanism for estimated on account payments. As administration charges for the licence to alter, they do appear unreasonably high. The Tribunal notes that the respondents have since withdrawn service charge demands for 2022. However, the Tribunal considers that it is still seized of jurisdiction to determine whether the demands when levied were unreasonably high. Ground rent is neither a service charge nor administration charge, and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to it. It follows from the above that the Tribunal finds that the demands were unreasonably high to the limited extent set out above.

68. However, the Tribunal finds that it is not just and convenient to make a management order under this ground. The reasons are (i) these matters if unagreed should be determined by the Tribunal by an [NAME] under sections 27A of the 1985 Act and Sch 11 Para 5 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (ii) a court-appointed manager does not have power to determine these issues and (iii) it would be disproportionate to make a management order on this ground.

Breaches of the RICS code of practice

69. The Code is not a statute and cannot be construed as such. In the judgment of the Tribunal, all the landlord can reasonably be expected to do in a simple property of this type, is to comply with the terms of the leases.

70. In relation to the alleged noise nuisance the Tribunal finds that reference to “floor” in paragraph 8 of the Sixth Schedule of the first-floor flat lease includes stair treads. It is clear from the photograph that the stairs are uncarpeted. Although the respondents have stated that they have installed hard flooring with sound insulating properties no [NAME] was provided as to the nature of that flooring or its sound insulating properties. In the absence of such [NAME] the Tribunal would expect the staircase to be carpeted with underlay to comply with the covenant. The Tribunal accepts the [NAME] of Ms [NAME] that she is seriously disturbed by noise emanating from the uncarpeted staircase. The Tribunal finds that the section [NAME] notice amounts to a notice engaging clause 6(4) of the ground floor lease, being a notice requiring the respondent to ensure that the first-floor lessees complied with paragraph 8 of the sixth schedule. It therefore finds that the respondent is in breach of its obligation under the lease to ensure that the first-floor lessee has complied with an obligation under its tenancy. The Tribunal does not have sufficient [NAME] to make a finding of harassment which has been suggested, albeit weakly, by the applicants.

71. In relation to the allegations that the respondents are unavailable for long periods of time whilst they are away, and consequently unable to deal with emergencies at the property, the Tribunal finds that there has been substantial communication between the parties, and this is far removed from circumstances where the landlord is missing. Secondly, the Tribunal accepts the [NAME] of the respondents that they have a [NAME] living [NAME] who can deal with emergencies. Thirdly the Tribunal finds that the applicants are not entitled to expect that all communications are in writing via solicitors in connection with the management of the building. Moreover, Ms [NAME] accepted that the applicants had lost the mobile phone number of the respondents and had not told the respondents. The Tribunal also takes into account that [NAME] [NAME] had accepted that there had been failures in the management of the property. Having regard to the above factors, the Tribunal finds that the applicants have significantly contributed to difficulties in relation to communications with the respondents. The applicants are not entitled to demand that the respondents appoint managing agents, as this is not provided for under the lease.

72. The manager would not have direct power to enforce the covenant that the respondent directors in their capacity as lessees carpet the stairs within the first-floor demise. That is a matter for the County Court. Having regard to that, the other findings above, and proportionality, the Tribunal does not find it just and convenient to make an order under this ground.

CONCLUSION

73. For the above reasons, the [NAME] is refused.

Name: [NAME] [NAME]: 18 May 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).

Legal Annex

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 c. 31

s. 21 Tenant’s right to apply to court for appointment of manager.

Law In Force With Amendments Pending

Version 6 of 7

1 July 2013 - Present

Subjects

Landlord and tenant

Keywords

Appointments; First-tier Tribunal; Leasehold valuation tribunals; Managers; Tenants’ rights; Upper Tribunal

21.— Tenant’s right to apply to court for appointment of manager.

(1) The tenant of a flat contained in any premises to which this Part applies may, subject to the following provisions of this Part, apply to [the appropriate tribunal]1 for an order under section 24 appointing a manager to act in relation to those premises.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), this Part applies to premises consisting of the whole or part of a building if the building or part contains two or more flats.

(3) This Part does not apply to any such premises at a time when—

(a) the interest of the landlord in the premises is held by [–]2[

(i) an [NAME] or a [NAME], or

(ii) the Welsh Ministers in their new towns residuary capacity,

]2

(b) the premises are included within the functional land of any charity.

[

(3A) But this Part is not prevented from applying to any premises because the interest of the landlord in the premises is held by a [NAME] if at least one-half of the flats contained in the premises are held on long leases which are not tenancies to which Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c. 56) applies.

]3

(4) An [NAME] for an order under section 24 may be made—

(a) jointly by tenants of two or more flats if they are each entitled to make such an [NAME] by virtue of this section, and

(b) in respect of two or more premises to which this Part applies;

and, in relation to any such joint [NAME] as is mentioned in paragraph (a), references in this Part to a single tenant shall be construed accordingly.

(5) Where the tenancy of a flat contained in any such premises is held by joint tenants, an [NAME] for an order under section 24 in respect of those premises may be made by any one or more of those tenants.

(6) An [NAME] to the court for it to exercise in relation to any premises [any jurisdiction]4 to appoint a [NAME] or manager shall not be made by a tenant (in his capacity as such) in any circumstances in which an [NAME] could be made by him for an order under section 24 appointing a manager to act in relation to those premises.

(7) References in this Part to a tenant do not include references to a tenant under a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies.

[

(8) For the purposes of this Part, “appropriate tribunal” means—

(a) in relation to premises in England, the First-tier Tribunal or, where determined by or under Tribunal Procedure Rules, the Upper Tribunal; and

(b) in relation to premises in Wales, a leasehold valuation tribunal.

]5

Notes

1

Words substituted by Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2013/1036 Sch.1(1) para.68(a) (July 1, 2013: substitution has effect subject to transitional provisions and savings specified in [NAME] 2013/1036 art.6(3) and Sch.3)

2

Existing text renumbered as s.21(3)(a)(i) and s.21(3)(a)(ii) inserted by Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 c. 17 Sch.8 para.38 (December 1, 2008)

3

Added by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 c. 15 Pt 2 c.5 s.161 (January 1, 2003 as [NAME] 2002/3012, insertion has effect subject to transitional provisions and savings specified in [NAME] 2002/3012 Sch.2)

4

Words substituted by Housing Act 1996 c. 52 Pt III c.I s.86(3) (September 1, 1997 subject to savings specified in [NAME] 1997/1851 Sch.1 para.2)

5

Added by Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2013/1036 Sch.1(1) para.68(b) (July 1, 2013: insertion has effect subject to transitional provisions and savings specified in [NAME] 2013/1036 art.6(3) and Sch.3)

Part II APPOINTMENT OF MANAGERS BY A TRIBUNAL > s. 21 Tenant’s right to apply to court for appointment of manager.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 c. 31

s. [NAME] notice by tenant.

Law In Force With Amendments Pending

Version 5 of 5

1 July 2013 - Present

Subjects

Landlord and tenant

Keywords

Appointments; First-tier Tribunal; Leasehold valuation tribunals; Managers; Notices; Tenants’ duties; Upper Tribunal

[NAME].— Preliminary notice by tenant.

(1) Before an [NAME] for an order under section 24 is made in respect of any premises to which this Part applies by a tenant of a flat contained in those premises, a notice under this section must (subject to subsection (3)) be served [by the tenant on—]1[

(i) the landlord, and

(ii) [NAME] (other than the landlord) by whom obligations relating to the management of the premises or any part of them are owed to the tenant under his tenancy.

]1

(2) A notice under this section must—

(a) specify the tenant’s name, the address of his flat and an address in England and Wales (which may be the address of his flat) at which [[NAME] on whom the notice is served]1 may serve notices, including notices in proceedings, on him in connection with this Part;

(b) state that the tenant intends to make an [NAME] for an order under section 24 to be made by [the appropriate tribunal]2 in respect of such premises to which this Part applies as are specified in the notice, but (if paragraph (d) is applicable) that he will not do so if the [requirement specified in pursuance of that paragraph is complied with]1 ;

(c) specify the grounds on which the court would be asked to make such an order and the matters that would be relied on by the tenant for the purpose of establishing those grounds;

(d) where those matters are capable of being remedied by [[NAME] on whom the notice is served, require him]1 , within such reasonable period as is specified in the notice, to take such steps for the purpose of remedying them as are so specified; and

(e) contain such information (if any) as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.

(3) [The appropriate tribunal]3 may (whether on the hearing of an [NAME] for an order under section 24 or not) by order dispense with the requirement to serve a notice under this section [ on a person]1 in a case where it is satisfied that it would not be reasonably practicable to serve such a notice on the [person]1 , but the court may, when doing so, direct that such other notices are served, or such other steps are taken, as it thinks fit.

(4) In a case where—

(a) a notice under this section has been served on the landlord, and

(b) his interest in the premises specified in pursuance of subsection (2)(b) is subject to a mortgage, the landlord shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving the notice, serve on the [NAME] a copy of the notice.

Notes

1

Amended by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 c. 15 Pt 2 c.5 s.160(2) (January 1, 2003 as [NAME] 2002/3012, modification has effect subject to transitional provisions and savings specified in [NAME] 2002/3012 Sch.2)

2

Words substituted by Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2013/1036 Sch.1(1) para.69(a) (July 1, 2013: substitution has effect subject to transitional provisions and savings specified in [NAME] 2013/1036 art.6(3) and Sch.3)

3

Words substituted by Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2013/1036 Sch.1(1) para.69(b) (July 1, 2013: substitution has effect subject to transitional provisions and savings specified in [NAME] 2013/1036 art.6(3) and Sch.3)

Part II APPOINTMENT OF MANAGERS BY A TRIBUNAL > s. [NAME] notice by tenant.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 c. 31

s. 23 [NAME] to court for appointment of manager.

Law In Force With Amendments Pending

Version 8 of 8

1 July 2013 - Present

Subjects

Landlord and tenant

Keywords

Applications; Appointments; Courts; Leasehold valuation tribunals; Managers

23.— [NAME] to court for appointment of manager.

(1) No [NAME] for an order under section 24 shall be made to [the appropriate tribunal]1 unless—

(a) in a case where a notice has been served under section [NAME], either—

(i) the period specified in pursuance of paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of that section has expired without the [person required to take steps in pursuance of that paragraph having taken them]2 , or

(ii) that paragraph was not applicable in the circumstances of the case; or

(b) in a case where the requirement to serve such a notice has been dispensed with by an order under subsection (3) of that section, either—

(i) any notices required to be served, and any other steps required to be taken, by virtue of the order have been served or (as the case may be) taken, or

(ii) no direction was given by [the tribunal]3 when [NAME] the order.

[...]4

Notes

1

Words substituted by Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2013/1036 Sch.1(1) para.70 (July 1, 2013: substitution has effect subject to transitional provisions and savings specified in [NAME] 2013/1036 art.6(3) and Sch.3)

2

Words substituted by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 c. 15 Pt 2 c.5 s.160(3) (January 1, 2003 as [NAME] 2002/3012, substitution has effect subject to transitional provisions and savings specified in [NAME] 2002/3012 Sch.2)

3

Words substituted by Housing Act 1996 c. 52 Pt III c.I s.86(2) (September 1, 1997 subject to savings specified in [NAME] 1997/1851 Sch.1 para.2)

4

Repealed by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 c. 15 Sch.14 para.1 (March 30, 2004 as [NAME] 2004/669)

Part II APPOINTMENT OF MANAGERS BY A TRIBUNAL > s. 23 [NAME] to court for appointment of manager.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 c. 31

s. 24 Appointment of manager by a tribunal.

Law In Force With Amendments Pending

Version 13 of 14

6 April 2023 - Present

Subjects

Landlord and tenant

Keywords

Appointments; First-tier Tribunal; Leasehold valuation tribunals; Managers; Upper Tribunal

24.— Appointment of manager by [ a [...]2 tribunal ]1 .

(1) [The appropriate tribunal]3 may, on an [NAME] for an order under this section, by order (whether interlocutory or final) appoint a manager to carry out in relation to any premises to which this Part applies—

(a) such functions in connection with the management of the premises, or

(b) such functions of a [NAME],

or both, as [the tribunal]1 thinks fit.

(2) [The appropriate tribunal]3 may only make an order under this section in the following circumstances, namely—

(a) where [the tribunal]1 is satisfied—

(i) that [any [NAME]]4 either is in breach of any obligation owed by him to the tenant under his tenancy and relating to the management of the premises in question or any part of them or (in the case of an obligation dependent on notice) would be in breach of any such obligation but for the fact that it has not been reasonably practicable for the tenant to give him the appropriate notice, and

[...]5

(iii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case; [...]6

[

(ab) where [the tribunal]1 is satisfied—

(i) that unreasonable service charges have been made, or are proposed or likely to be made, and

(ii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case;

[

(aba) where the tribunal is satisfied—

(i) that unreasonable variable administration charges [ or prohibited administration charges]8 have been made, or are proposed or likely to be made, and

]7

(ac) where [the tribunal]1 is satisfied—

(i) that [any [NAME]]4 has failed to comply with any [NAME] provision of a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (codes of management practice), and

(ii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case; or

]6

(b) where [the tribunal]1 is satisfied that other circumstances exist which make it just and convenient for the order to be made.

[

(2ZA) In this section “[NAME]” means a person—

(a) on whom a notice has been served under section [NAME], or

(b) in the case of whom the requirement to serve a notice under that section has been dispensed with by an order under subsection (3) of that section.

]4[

(2ZB) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply in respect of a breach of a building safety obligation by an [NAME] for a higher-risk building.

(2ZC) In this section—

”[NAME]” has the meaning given in section 72 of the Building Safety Act 2022;

”building safety obligation” means an obligation of an [NAME] under Part 4 of the Building Safety Act 2022 or regulations made under that Part;

”higher-risk building” has the meaning given in section 65 of the Building Safety Act 2022.

]9[

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(ab) a service charge shall be taken to be unreasonable—

(a) if the amount is unreasonable having regard to the items for which it is payable,

(b) if the items for which it is payable are of an unnecessarily high standard, or

(c) if the items for which it is payable are of an insufficient standard with the result that additional service charges are or may be incurred.

In that provision and this subsection “service charge” means a service charge within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, other than one excluded from that section by section 27 of that Act (rent of dwelling registered and not entered as variable).

]10[

(2B) In subsection (2)(aba) “variable administration charge” has the meaning given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002[, and ”prohibited administration charge” means an administration charge which is not payable because of paragraph 2A of that Schedule]11.

]7[

(2E) An order under this section may not provide for a manager to carry out a function in relation to a higher-risk building where Part 4 of the Building Safety Act 2022 or regulations made under that Part provide for that function to be carried out by an [NAME] for that building.

]12

(3) The premises in respect of which an order is made under this section may, if [the tribunal]1 thinks fit, be either more or less extensive than the premises specified in the [NAME] on which the order is made.

(4) An order under this section may make provision with respect to—

(a) such matters relating to the exercise by the manager of his functions under the order, and

(b) such incidental or ancillary matters,

as [the tribunal]1 thinks fit; and, on any subsequent [NAME] made for the purpose by the manager, [the tribunal]1 may give him directions with respect to any such matters.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), an order under this section may provide—

(a) for rights and liabilities arising under contracts to which the manager is not a party to become rights and liabilities of the manager;

(b) for the manager to be entitled to prosecute claims in respect of causes of action (whether contractual or tortious) accruing before or after the date of his appointment;

(c) for remuneration to be paid to the manager by [any [NAME]]4 , or by the tenants of the premises in respect of which the order is made or by all or any of those persons;

(d) for the manager’s functions to be exercisable by him (subject to subsection (9)) either during a specified period or without limit of time.

(6) Any such order may be granted subject to such conditions as [the tribunal]1 thinks fit, and in particular its operation may be suspended on terms fixed by [the tribunal]1 .

(7) In a case where an [NAME] for an order under this section was preceded by the service of a notice under section [NAME] , [the tribunal]1 may, if it thinks fit, make such an order notwithstanding—

(a) that any period specified in the notice in pursuance of subsection (2)(d) of that section was not a reasonable period, or

(b) that the notice failed in any other respect to comply with any requirement contained in subsection (2) of that section or in any regulations applying to the notice under section 54(3).

(8) The Land Charges Act 1972 and the [Land Registration Act 2002]13 shall apply in relation to an order made under this section as they apply in relation to an order appointing a [NAME] or sequestrator of land.

(9) [The appropriate tribunal]3 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]13 , [the tribunal]1 may by order direct that the entry shall be cancelled.

[

(9A) The [tribunal]15 shall not vary or discharge an order under subsection (9) on [the [NAME] of any [NAME]]4 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.

]14

(10) An order made under this section shall not be discharged by [the appropriate tribunal]16 by reason only that, by virtue of section 21(3), the premises in respect of which the order was made have ceased to be premises to which this Part applies.

(11) References in this [Part]4 to the management of any premises include references to the repair, maintenance [, improvement]17 or insurance of those premises.

Notes

1

2

Words repealed by Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2013/1036 Sch.1(1) para.71(a) (July 1, 2013: repeal has effect subject to transitional provisions and savings specified in [NAME] 2013/1036 art.6(3) and Sch.3)

3

Words substituted by Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2013/1036 Sch.1(1) para.71(b) (July 1, 2013: substitution has effect subject to transitional provisions and savings specified in [NAME] 2013/1036 art.6(3) and Sch.3)

4

Amended by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 c. 15 Pt 2 c.5 s.160(4) (January 1, 2003 as [NAME] 2002/3012, modification has effect subject to transitional provisions and savings specified in [NAME] 2002/3012 Sch.2)

5

Repealed by Housing Act 1996 c. 52 Pt III c.I s.85(2) (September 24, 1996)

6

Added by Housing Act 1996 c. 52 Pt III c.I s.85(3) (September 24, 1996)

7

Amended by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 c. 15 Sch.11(2) para.8 (March 30, 2004 as [NAME] 2004/669)

8

Words inserted by Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 c. 1 s.18(6)(a) (June 30, 2022 except in relation to leases of retirement homes; April 1, 2023 otherwise)

9

Added by Building Safety Act 2022 c. 30 Pt 4 s.110(2) (April 6, 2023: April 28, 2022 for the purposes of [NAME] regulations; April 6, 2023 otherwise)

10

Added by Housing Act 1996 c. 52 Pt III c.I s.85(4) (September 24, 1996)

11

Words inserted by Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 c. 1 s.18(6)(b) (June 30, 2022 except in relation to leases of retirement homes; April 1, 2023 otherwise)

12

Added by Building Safety Act 2022 c. 30 Pt 4 s.110(3) (April 6, 2023: April 28, 2022 for the purposes of [NAME] regulations; April 6, 2023 otherwise)

13

Words substituted by Land Registration Act 2002 c. 9 Sch.11 para.20 (October 13, 2003)

14

Added by Housing Act 1996 c. 52 Pt III c.I s.85(6) (September 24, 1996)

15

Substituted by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 c. 15 Sch.13 para.9 (March 30, 2004 as [NAME] 2004/669)

16

Words substituted by Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2013/1036 Sch.1(1) para.71(c) (July 1, 2013: substitution has effect subject to transitional provisions and savings specified in [NAME] 2013/1036 art.6(3) and Sch.3)

17

Word inserted by Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 c. 15 Sch.9 para.8 (March 30, 2004 as [NAME] 2004/669)

Part II APPOINTMENT OF MANAGERS BY A TRIBUNAL > s. 24 Appointment of manager by a tribunal.