First-tier Tribunal Rejects Appointment of New Property Manager

OUTCOME: Refused

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AG/LAM/2025/0010 Property : 147-155 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : I/P Respondent : [redacted] : Ms [COUNSEL] (director) Type of [NAME] : Appointment of a manager Tribunal members : Judge Tagliavini Mr Kevin Ridgeway MRICS Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of hearing Date of decision : 21 & 22 August 2025 10 September 2025

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The [NAME] to appoint Mr [NAME] as manager of 147-155

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] is refused. _____________________________________________________ The [NAME] 1. This is an [NAME] pursuant to s.24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act

1987 seeking to appoint Mr [APPELLANT] as manager of the subject

property at 147-155 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the

Property’). The background 2. The applicant is the long [NAME] of the basement flat pursuant to a lease

dated 10 July 1998 and deed of variation in the Property that comprises

a lateral conversion of three Georgian mid-terraced houses converted

into nine flats. Despite having relied on a surveyor’s condition report

when the applicant purchased the property, Ms [APPELLANT] seemed unaware

of damp problems that became evident not long after her purchase. 3. The respondent is a [COMPANY] that has

managed the property for over 25 years. The leaseholder members of the

[COMPANY] unanimously oppose the appointment of a

manager and the appointment of Mr [APPELLANT] in particular. 4. The applicant served s.22 Notice was served on the respondent dated

(1) 8 December 2023 and (2) 31 January 2025alleging:

1. The landlord is in breach of obligations owed to the tenants

under the lease (failure to maintain and repair and demand

service charges in accordance with the lease);

2. The landlord has made/[NAME] unreasonable service

charges;

3. The landlord is in breach of the Code of Practice approved by

the Secretary of State under Section 87, Leasehold Reform,

Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

4. Demanding unreasonable service charges;

5. Failed to obtain an insurance policy that included ‘escape of

water.’

3

6. That other circumstances exist which make it just and

convenient to appoint a manager. 5. The applicant asserted the Property had been mismanaged and

neglected since she had purchased it in February 2022 and that it had

not been maintained by the respondent. The respondent denied the

allegations made by the applicant and asserted the appointment of a

manager was both unnecessary and costly The hearing 6. A face to face hearing was held on 21 & 22 August 2025 at which the

applicant represented herself and the respondent was represented by Ms

[RESPONDENT] a director of the [COMPANY]. The tribunal was

provided with a 352 page digital bundle as well as skeleton arguments

from both parties. The applicant sought to rely on the reports from [APPELLANT]; [APPELLANT] (loss adjuster) and [NAME]

(2016 – pre-dating the applicant’s leasehold interest). 7. In addition, the tribunal heard from Mr [NAME] of [COMPANY] who spoke to his witness statement dated

27/07/2025 detailing the alleged unauthorised sub-letting and breaches

of the lease. The tribunal was also provided with witness statements from

a number of other leaseholders who opposed the [NAME]. The tribunal’s decision . 8. Having read the documents provided and heard the oral evidence of Mr

[RESPONDENT] and Mr [RESPONDENT] as well as from the respondent, the tribunal finds

the respondent had breached the terms of the applicant’s lease as alleged

in the s.22 Notice in that:

(i) The respondent has failed to carry out works of repair to remedy

the water penetration/lack of or failure of the DPC to the

basement flat.

(ii) The respondent has made demands for payment of service

charges at incorrect intervals in breach of the requirements set

in the Fifth Schedule.

The tribunal also determines that:

(ii) Mr [NAME] is insufficiently qualified or experienced to

be appointed manager of the subject Property. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision

4 9. In reaching its decision the tribunal had regard to s. 24(2) of the

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, the relevant parts of which state:

(2) The appropriate tribunal may only make an order under this

section in the following circumstances, namely

(a) where the tribunal is satisfied—

(i) that any relevant person 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

(ii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(iii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the

circumstances of the case 10. The tribunal finds there has been water ingress both from the flat above

into the Property and a failing of the DPC. This has resulted in a

number of substantial successful claims being made by the applicant

on the Property’s insurance with the monies being paid directly to

her. Currently, works to the DPC are required in order to render the

flat inhabitable. 11. The tribunal finds the leases requires the landlord to:

5.5.1 To maintain and keep in good and substantial repair and

condition:

5.5.1.1 the main structure of the Building ,including (without

prejudice to the generality thereof) the principal internal

timbers and the exterior walls and the foundations and

the roof thereof with its main water tanks main drains

gutters and rain water pipes (other than those included in

this demise or in the demise of any other flat in the

Building)

…

5.5.11 To insure and keep insured the Building (unless such

insurance shall be vitiated by an act or default of the

[NAME]…) against loss or damage by fire explosion storm

tempest earthquake and such other risks (if any) as the

5

[NAME] shall necessarily think fit in some insurance office

of repute… 12. The tribunal finds that although the respondent has obtained its own

quotes for doing the necessary work, it has failed to instigate those works

by following (if required),the s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

consultation requirements and sending all leaseholders a demand for the

appropriate contribution in accordance with terms of the lease. The

tribunal finds the respondent has significantly delayed in meeting its

repairing obligations. The tribunal finds the applicant has not assisted in

the process of getting works done by failing to provide the respondent

with details of the insurance claims she has made or details of the

significant sums she has been paid in addition to failing to provide access

as required by the respondent. 13. Although, the respondent has allowed the [NAME] of Flat 5 to sublet this

flat without the appropriate authority having being obtained, the

tribunal finds this omission has been or is in the process of being

remedied. 14. The tribunal finds the respondent has failed to serve service charge

demands on the applicant in accordance with the terms of the Fifth

Schedule of the lease. The respondent accepted that monthly requests

to lessees as the majority had agreed this was an acceptable way of

[NAME] the required payments were made, instead of the six monthly

required by the lease. 15. The tribunal finds Ms [NAME] has not ‘sub-let’ her flat by sharing it

occasionally with a paying guest. 16. The tribunal finds that the applicant’s previous claims on the insurance

policy has led to an increase in the premium. However, this should not

necessarily preclude the respondent from obtaining comprehensive

cover albeit at an increased cost in accordance with the insurance

obligation at clause 5.5.11 if the respondent reasonably considers think

it fitting to do so. 17. Having found the respondent has breached a number of terms of the

lease, the tribunal considered whether it is just and convenient in all the

circumstances to appoint a manager. The tribunal took into account

the views of the other leaseholders who provided witness statements and

who expressed their view that they were happy with the management of

the property. The tribunal also took into account the assertions of Ms

[NAME] that permission to sublet Flat 5 had now been sought and

given and that changes to the demands for payment of service

charges would be made for those that required it.

6 18. However, the tribunal was mindful of the impasse that has been created

between the applicant and the respondent over the need to reinstate the

flat to a habitable condition (including works to the DPC. Unfortunately,

this impasse has led to a complete breakdown in the relationship

between the parties and which an objective third party i.e. a manager

would be expected to be able to resolve. 19. The tribunal also took into account the lack of respondent’s awareness

of its obligation to carry out the works and seek the appropriate

contributions from all leaseholders and not just ‘bargain’ with the

applicant by offering to pay a certain contribution to these works.

Consequently, on balance the tribunal determined it would be just and

convenient to appoint a manager in order to ensure the necessary works

were carried out and demands for service charges were made to the

applicant in accordance with the lease The [NAME] manager 20. The tribunal carefully considered the oral evidence put forward by the

[NAME] manager Mr [NAME]. However, the tribunal

determined that Mr [NAME] is an unsuitable person to be appointed by

the tribunal. 21. The tribunal finds Mr [NAME] lacks the necessary qualifications for this

role. The tribunal was also concerned that Mr [NAME] had sought to

mislead the tribunal as he admitted that he had no TPI ([NAME]) qualifications, despite initially asserting he had; lacks

experience having only having been a managing agent; was unaware of

the duties and obligations of the manager and had not looked at the

tribunal’s Draft Management Order template; had not seen a copy of the

lease before his inspection; had not drawn up a management plan for the

Property and had failed to provide both a witness statement and a Draft

Management Order to the tribunal (the latter having been drafted by the

applicant). 22. In conclusion the tribunal finds although the respondent has breached

certain terms of the lease and that it is just and convenient to appoint a

manger it declines to appoint Mr [NAME]. Therefore, the [NAME] is

refused.

Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 10 September 2025

7 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 ([NAME]), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-[NAME]-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] 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 ([NAME]).