First-tier Tribunal Rules Tenant Breached Lease Terms

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AH/LBC/2024/0609 Property : 2B [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL] (director) Respondent : [redacted] : In person Type of [NAME] : An allegation of breach of covenant: Section 168(4) Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Tribunal members : Judge [NAME] and Venue of hearing : 1st [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision: : 13th June 2025

DECISION

Decisions of the tribunal For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal finds:

(1) The Respondent has breached clause 3(5) of the [NAME]; (2) The Respondent has not breached clause 3(6) of the [NAME]; and (3) The Respondent has not breached clause 3(11) of the [NAME].

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

2 The background

1. The Applicant, [APPELLANT], is the freehold owner of 2B [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (the “Premises”). Mr [APPELLANT] is the sole director of [COMPANY].

2. The Premises are a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of a 3-storey Edwardian building originally constructed as a house. The building has been converted into 3 flats, with one flat on each floor.

3. The Respondent’s [NAME] is dated 16th October 1984, and is for a term of 99 years commencing 24th June 1984 (the “[NAME]”).

4. Ms [NAME], Mr [NAME] daughter, has been the leasehold owner of the ground floor flat since around 2016.

The [NAME]

3. The following provisions of the [NAME] are relevant to this [NAME].

4. Clause 3 of the [NAME] sets out the leaseholder’s covenants, and clause 3(5) states:

That [NAME] will once in every three years of the said term paint such parts of the exterior of the demised premises usually painted and all additions thereto with three coats of good suitable paint in a proper workmanlike manner in similar colours to those applied to the adjacent premises

5. Also relevant is clause 3(6) which states (original emphasis):

That [NAME] will permit [NAME] and his agents with or without workman once or oftener in every calendar year during the said term on giving at least Forty-eight hours written notice to [NAME] or occupier for the time being of the demised premises of the intention of [NAME] so to do to enter the demised premises to view the state of repair and condition thereof and thereupon [NAME] may give to [NAME] or leave on the demised premises a notice in writing specifying all defects and want of repair then and there found and [NAME] will within the period of four calendar months after such notice repair and make good the same according to such notice and the covenant in that behalf hereinbefore contained and will permit [NAME] to enter and inspect the same on completion thereof PROVIDED ALWAYS that if [NAME] shall at any time make default in the performance of any of the covenants hereinbefore contained for or relating to the repair of the demised premises and notwithstanding the waiver of any previous default [NAME] (but without prejudice to the right of re- entry hereinafter reserved) enter upon the demised premises and repair the same at the expense of [NAME] in accordance with the covenants and provisions all these presents and the

3 costs and expenses of such repairs shall be a debt due from [NAME] to be [NAME] and be forthwith recoverable by action

6. Finally, as regards the relevant provisions of the [NAME], clause 3(11) states:

That [NAME] will at all times during the said term insure and keep insured against loss or damage by fire and other risks usually covered by a Householder's Comprehensive Policy the demised premises and all erections and fixtures of an insurable nature which at any time during the said term may be erected or placed thereon or affixed thereto in a sum equal to the full value thereof in the Sun Alliance & London insurance group at 7-15 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] through the agency of [NAME]'s Solicitors and will pay all premiums necessary for that purpose within seven days after the same shall have become due and will whenever required produce to [NAME] the policy of such insurance and the receipt for the last premium of every such insurance and in case of damage or destruction by fire will forthwith layout the insurance money in rebuilding or [NAME] good the damage provided always that if the said money shall be insufficient to repair or make good such loss or damage [NAME] in rebuilding and reinstating the demised premises or works so destroyed or damaged in accordance with the original plans and elevations thereof subject to such variations (if any) as may be agreed in writing by [NAME]

7. The [NAME], dated 30th October 2024, seeks a determination pursuant to section 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”) that the Respondent is in breach of the above provisions of the [NAME]. In particular, it is alleged that the Respondent has:

7.1 Failed to decorate the exterior of the Premises in breach of clause 3(5);

7.2 Refused access to the Premises in breach of clause 3(6); and

7.3 Failed to produce insurance documents for the Premises in breach of clause 3(11). 8. By an order dated 27th November 2024, Judge Donegan made directions in respect of the [NAME], including that the parties must seek to agree a paginated bundle for use at the final hearing. It also listed the [NAME] for a final hearing on 1st April 2025.

9. We understand that over the years there have been disputes between the parties, and although the subject matter of those disputes are not relevant to the alleged breaches, it was evident that these disputes are as a consequence of, have caused and/or contributed to the strained relationship between the Respondent and Mr [RESPONDENT], and indeed, Ms [RESPONDENT]. We consider this is useful background that puts in context the issues which we are required to determine.

4

10. As stated, those matters are not directly relevant to the issues to be determined by this [NAME]. We will therefore not deal substantively with the subject matter of those disputes.

The Inspection

11. Neither party requested an inspection, and the Tribunal did not consider that one was necessary.

The hearing

12. As stated, the hearing was listed on 1st April 2025, and it took place at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE].

13. At the hearing the Applicant was represented by Mr [APPELLANT]. The Respondent was not legally represented. His wife and sister were present for support.

14. The parties had not agreed a single (joint) bundle, instead, each submitted their own bundle for use at the Tribunal, containing the documents that party wished to rely on.

15. We considered it was in the interests of justice to allow each side an opportunity to rely on their respective bundle. And thought it was unclear to what extent Mr [RESPONDENT] had seen some or all of the documents in the Respondent’s bundle, we nonetheless admitted both.

16. The hearing had a delayed start, it was put back to 12.05pm, this was to allow each party an opportunity to consider the contents of the other side’s bundle. Before hearing any evidence, the Tribunal ascertained whether each side had had sufficient opportunity to consider the other side’s bundle, and were ready to begin. Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME] both confirmed they had done so, and were ready to begin.

17. The Tribunal was provided with the following documentation for the hearing:

17.1 A 94-page electronic bundle from the Applicant; and 17.2 A hardcopy unpaginated bundle from the Respondent.

18. The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr [APPELLANT] on behalf of the Applicant, and from the Respondent. They both also made legal arguments to support their respective cases.

The Determination 19. The Tribunal acknowledges the time that has elapsed since the final hearing. The parties have been kept updated. Nonetheless, the Tribunal would like to

5 thank the parties for their patience in waiting for this determination to be issued.

20. The Tribunal reached its decision after considering the oral and written evidence, and taking into account its assessment of the evidence.

21. This determination does not refer to every matter raised by the parties, or every document the Tribunal reviewed or took into account in reaching its decision. However, this doesn't imply that any points raised, or documents not specifically mentioned were disregarded. If a point or document was referred to in the evidence or submissions that was relevant to a specific issue, it was considered by the Tribunal.

22. We have applied the relevant law to the issues that require determination, and our decisions are at paragraphs 23 to 69 below.

The Alleged Breach – External Redecoration 23. This alleged breach, as set out in block capitals at section 5 of the [NAME] states:

[NAME] THE EXTERIOR OF THE PREMISES EVERY 3 YEARS. IT IS IN VERY POOR CONDITION BECAUSE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS MR FRANCIS HAS NEGLECTED TO DO IT (PAGE 3(5)) The Tribunal’s Decision 24. The Tribunal determines that the Respondent has breached clause 3(5) of the [NAME].

Reasons for the Tribunal Decision

25. The Respondent acquired his leasehold interest in the Property in 2003. His oral evidence was that he last carried out external redecoration to the side of the Premises in 2008/2009. As to the front, he could not recall when he last redecorated it, he said it would have been before 2008/2009, or possibly he has not redecorated the front since he purchased the Premises.

26. When asked why he had not arranged for external redecoration every three years, he responded that in his opinion redecoration was not required. The Respondent was taken to clause 3(6) of the [NAME] and asked whether his approach of redecorating only when required was consistent with clause 3(6) of the [NAME]. He repeated his earlier response, which is, having considered the express provisions, he read this to mean he was required to redecorate when he considered redecoration was needed.

27. Ms [NAME], who is Mr [NAME] daughter, acquired the leasehold interest in the ground floor flat immediately below the Premises in around 2016.

6

28. By a letter dated 28th July 2017, Mr [RESPONDENT] wrote to the Respondent stating external redecoration was urgently needed, and enquiring whether he planned to address this. Mr [NAME] wrote again 29th August 2017, and again on 30th July 2018 as follows:

I wrote to you a year ago as to whether you were intending to redecorate the exterior of your flat. You did not respond and on a recent visit to the area I notice that nothing had been done.

I have spoken with my solicitor about the property and he has informed me that I could take legal action and enforce the redecoration. This is not a course I would wish to take. I would rather you respond and tell me what your intentions are. However, if you do not respond with confirmation of a course of action, then you will leave me with no choice but to take matters further.

29. In May 2018 the Respondent discussed colour options with Ms [RESPONDENT], and agreed to redecorate using her preferred paint colour.

30. In 2018 external redecoration of the back and side of the Premises was completed.

31. On 7th August 2018 the Respondent notified Ms [RESPONDENT] that scaffolders would be arriving the following day. As scheduled, the scaffolders arrived on 8th August 2018, but Ms [NAME] objected to scaffolding being erected in her garden, stating permission had not been given to do so within her demise.

32. In a letter dated 9th August 2018, the Respondent wrote to Ms [RESPONDENT] formally requesting her consent to the scaffolding.

33. Ms [NAME] response is in a detailed closely typed letter dated 19th August 2018. It states she will treat any access to the front and side garden without her consent as trespassing. Ms [NAME] then raises a series of queries and requests, which take up an A4 page. Broadly speaking she queries when access will be required, how long scaffolding will be in each area and the arrangements for dismantling it in each area, the name of the company erecting the scaffolding, the qualification of their contractors, an assurance that they have public liability insurance, and what precautions are in place to ensure she does not incur financial loss.

34. As to the latter, Ms [NAME] states:

I will need to see evidence that you have funds readily available for any repairs should damage occur and if I have to take any time off work to secure the property in case of damage (to a broken window, for example), I will need to be reimbursed for the time taken off work at a rate agreed between us.

7

35. Ms [NAME] letter continues, that she requires permanent access to outbuildings and to other parts of the property backing the kitchen, and requires the Respondent to provide written confirmation of this. We do not see how this request is relevant to whether access is given for the redecoration, and Ms [NAME] does not explain this in her letter.

36. Ms [NAME] letter also states:

Once you have answered these and I have accepted your answers, I am happy to sign a legal agreement that your solicitor has prepared to give you access the property and that sets out the terms and conditions- including timings and potential compensation should an accident occur

Please note that I am also within my legal right to charge you ground rent for each week that the scaffolding is erected on my property, however I'm not intended to pursue this route- although I want to ensure I'm not financially liable should there be any accidents, as well as keep the period where the scaffolding is present on the property to within a reasonable amount of time.

37. We consider it is reasonable for the owner of an adjacent property to protect their interests while work of this nature is carried out. Nonetheless, in our judgment, the nature of some of Ms [NAME] requests are burdensome. Particularly, as we note the Respondent had provided Ms [RESPONDENT] with documents confirming the contractors appointed had substantial public liability insurance.

38. In light of the issues raised by Ms [RESPONDENT], the Respondent informed Mr [RESPONDENT] that these issues were impacting on his ability to carry out the external redecorations as requested. Mr [APPELLANT] responded on behalf of the Applicant in a letter dated 31st August 2018. Regarding the requests Ms [RESPONDENT] had made of the Respondent, Mr [RESPONDENT] letter to the Respondent included the following (emphasis added):

This is a situation I have come across many times before so may I suggest that you speak with your legal advisor about drawing up a relevant legal agreement that would satisfy your neighbour and enable the works to commence. Any agreement may have to be approved by both parties’ solicitors and as such you may be responsible for all of the fees involved.

39. In this letter, Mr [RESPONDENT] also notes that Ms [RESPONDENT] has requested the Respondent provides a personal guarantee to deal with potential damage caused during works.

40. As no agreement was reached between the Respondent and Ms [RESPONDENT] regarding the scaffolding, external redecorations could not be completed. This resulted in the Applicant writing to the Respondent on 6th June 2019 regarding the outstanding external redecoration, and reminding the

8 Respondent of the legal action the Applicant could take. This was also raised in subsequent correspondence sent to the Respondent on 26th January 2022.

41. In his letter dated 6th February 2022, the Respondent suggested Mr [RESPONDENT] intervenes and speaks with Ms [NAME], stating:

May I suggest you take this up with [NAME] on why she refused to grant access to her property, would be a good starting point in resolving this impasse?

42. In a further written reminder dated 16th May 2022 from the Applicant to the Respondent regarding the external redecorations, the latter is informed that, subject to a (personal) guarantee and an agreed timescale, Ms [NAME] will give permission for the scaffolding to be erected.

43. On 22nd August 2022 Mr [RESPONDENT] wrote to the Respondent’s mortgage lenders alleging the Respondent had breached his [NAME], and that the Applicant could rely on this to apply for a possession order.

44. In an attempt to progress this and other matters, Mr [RESPONDENT] e-mailed the Respondent on 8th May 2023. The substantive part of that e-mail reads:

This is to inform you that last week we had a discussion with [COMPANY] and also my company's solicitor as regards lack of action with external decoration and buildings insurance for [ADDRESS].

[COMPANY] are referring the matter to their legal department to see if there is basis for legal action against you as you have not responded to them about the insurance of the property and your continued breach of your covenants in respect of external decoration. Neither have you responded to us as freeholders with evidence of your insurance. This is a situation that we cannot allow to continue. In the first instance we would prefer to avoid the necessity of having to take court action by engaging in a reasonable discussion to find a productive way forward. To this end, we would like to hold a meeting with you on site to discuss the decorating obligations and for us to have sight of your buildings insurance documentation. As I am sure you are aware a lack of adequate buildings insurance constitutes a breach of your [NAME] obligations.

If you fail to do this, then we have been advised by our solicitor to take you to court and obtain a court order forcing you to comply with the above. If you then fail in your obligations you will be in contempt of court, which could mean having to pay a fine, face further enforcement orders and could potentially even receive a custodial sentence. Repossession of your property is also a potential outcome. We are only too aware that nobody can make anyone do anything in this world and so we can only hope that in light of the above you will see sense and comply. If not, then some or all of the above will happen. In addition to all of this, if found to be guilty of

9 ignoring your obligations you will be responsible for all of our legal costs in addition to the decoration costs.

An alternative to the above would be for us to enter the premises as freeholders and carry out the work in default.

If we do not hear from you within a week regarding a mutually agreeable meet date then we are left with no option but to follow through with legal action or carry out the work in default.

45. At the final hearing, the Tribunal asked Mr [NAME] whether he had asked Ms [NAME] to agree to the scaffolding being erected, notwithstanding the Respondent had not provided a personal guarantee and some of her other requests. Mr [NAME] responded that he had not.

46. Contrary to the implication in Mr [NAME] letter dated 31st August 2018, in our experience, it is unusual for a residential leaseholder to request a personal guarantee in respect of external redecoration carried out by a neighbouring leaseholder.

47. Furthermore, the Applicant’s approach to dealing with the issues between the Respondent and Ms [RESPONDENT] as regards the scaffolding did not always seem to be impartial. There is repeated correspondence from the Applicant requesting the Respondent accedes to Ms [APPELLANT] various requests, despite there being a number of requests which we consider are unjustified. However, according to Mr [APPELLANT] evidence, the Applicant took no steps to explore with Ms [APPELLANT] whether she would be willing to compromise or withdraw any of her requests.

48. As to the Applicant’s approach to this dispute between Ms [APPELLANT] and the Respondent, in the conclusion section of his statement of case, the Respondent writes:

Mr [RESPONDENT] and his daughter, Ms [RESPONDENT], have engaged in a deliberates and sustained campaign to undermine my quiet enjoyment of the property. Their actions- ranging from persistent threats and selective enforcement of [NAME] obligations to obstruction of essential maintenance and unreasonable legal claims- demonstrate a clear pattern of hostility, intimidation, and bad faith.

Since 2016, following Mr [NAME] failed attempt to secure a least variation granting his daughter permanent access to my property, their conduct has grown increasingly aggressive. Mr [NAME] has repeatedly issued threatening letters alleging breaches of the Leasehold Agreement, even escalating matters by contacting my mortgage provider in an apparent attempt to create financial and legal complications. His selective and inconsistent enforcement of the Leasehold Agreement is clearly designed to impose undue financial burdens on me while exempting others, such as Mr [NAME], from their shared responsibilities.

10

Miss [NAME] has actively contributed to this campaign by [NAME] unreasonable demands, such as requiring a personal guarantee before permitting scaffolding access- despite the scaffolding company's comprehensive liability insurance. Given her history of disregarding both verbal and written agreements, this demand appears to be yet another deliberate obstacle designed to obstruct essential maintenance and expose me to potential unjustified claims.

49. Notwithstanding the above, the Respondent has not made a counterclaim, so it is relevant only as background. Nonetheless, as a finding of breach of covenant may have potentially serious consequences, we consider it is appropriate that our findings are contextual.

50. As stated, we have concluded that the Respondent is in breach of clause 3(6) of the [NAME]. We disagree with the Respondent’s interpretation that the [NAME] allows him to carry out external redecorations when, in his opinion, redecoration is needed. We find the express wording of clause 3(6) imposes an unqualified requirement that external redecoration is carried out every three years.

51. The Respondent’s evidence is that he has not carried out any external redecoration in the last 3 years. We have noted the dispute that has impacted on his attempt to redecorate the front of the Premises since 2018. However, absent a successful counterclaim in respect of those matters, the situation is that the front of the Premises has not been redecorated in accordance with the terms of the [NAME].

52. Furthermore, Ms [NAME] purchased the ground floor flat in 2016. Yet, according to the Respondent’s evidence, he had either last redecorated the front of the Premises prior to 2008/2009, or possibly not at all since purchasing the Premises. He also did not redecorate the side of the Premises between 2008/2009 to 2018. Furthermore, he has not carried out external redecoration to the side or back of the Premises since 2018, even though the access dispute with Ms [NAME] would only impact redecorating the front of the Premises.

53. Therefore, while the dispute with Ms [NAME] is likely to have impacted his ability to redecorate the front of the Premises, we find the Respondent was in breach of clause 3(6) of the [NAME] before [NAME] purchased her flat. We find that breach is continuing in respect of the front of the Premises, but also in respect of the side and back of the Premises, which the Respondent does not seem to need any consent from Ms [RESPONDENT] to execute.

The Alleged Breach - Access 54. This alleged breach, as set out in block capitals at section 5 of the [NAME] states:

11 [NAME] ME ACCESS TO CHECK THE CONDITION OF THE INTERIOR (PAGE 4(6))1 The Tribunal’s Decision 55. The Tribunal determines that the Respondent has not breached clause 3(6) of the [NAME].

Reasons for the Tribunal Decision

56. During his oral evidence, Mr [NAME] clarified that the request for access he relied upon was as set out in his e-mail of 8th May 2023, which is at page 21 of the Applicant’s bundle (and quoted at paragraph 44 above). Page 21 shows that the e-mail was sent from the Applicant’s e-mail to the Applicant’s e-mail address. The Tribunal asked Mr [APPELLANT] about this, to explore whether he may have sent it to the Respondent, for instance, by blind copy. However, when asked why the sender and recipient’s e-mail addresses were the same, Mr [RESPONDENT] said he could not explain that.

57. The Respondent says he did not receive this e-mail, and we accept the Respondent’s evidence on this point for a number of reasons. Firstly, on the face of the e-mail, it was not sent to the Respondent: [redacted] Applicant to the Applicant. Secondly, Mr [APPELLANT] could not explain why it was sent to and from the same e-mail address. Thirdly, there is no response from the Respondent to this e-mail. Although not determinative, it tends to support his account that he did not receive it.

The Alleged Breach - Insurance 58. This alleged breach, as set out in block capitals at section 5 of the [NAME] states:

THE LESSE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH MY REQUEST FOR SIGHT OF HIS INSURANCE POLICY AND RECEIPT (PAGE 5(11))2 The Tribunal’s Decision 59. The Tribunal determines that the Respondent has not breached clause 3(11) of the [NAME].

Reasons for the Tribunal Decision

60. The Applicant relies on an e-mail sent to the Respondent on 7th January 2023. The subject of the e-mail is “Increased rebuilding costs” and the substantive part reads:

1 The clause which the Applicant relies on is clause 3(6) of the [NAME] 2 The clause which the Applicant relies on is clause 3(11) of the [NAME]

12 We regret to note that we have not had a response from you in connection with the request to supply us with insurance details of your property.

There could be a number of reasons why you have not responded. It could be that you have been very busy over the Christmas period, or worse, that you have overlooked ensuring your property. But whatever they may be it is important that you supply this information as we need to have confirmation that the property is insured and that the rebuild costs have been correctly calculated.

If we do not hear from you within seven days we will assume that your property is uninsured and will inform [COMPANY] accordingly. Hopefully this action will not be needed if you comply with the request.

61. We were not taken to the previous request that is referred to in the above e- mail, and it does not appear to be in either party’s bundle. However, Mr [NAME] subsequent e-mail of 8th May 2023 is in the bundle, and is set out at paragraph 52 above.

62. It can be seen that the tone of the later e-mail is more stern. To put this in context, at the hearing Mr [NAME] explained it was his understanding that the [NAME] requires the Respondent to provide a copy of the insurance, irrespective of whether the Applicant requests this or not. That may well explain why, having requested it, and still not receiving it the communication became more stern.

63. Both parties’ respective bundles contain a [NAME] insurance policy schedule for the period 11th October 2024 to 10th January 2025, which includes amongst other things, the rebuilding costs in the parties’ respective bundles. However, Mr [NAME] states this was only provided to him as part of the disclosure in these proceedings, and not in response to the various requests made.

64. The Respondent’s position is that when he received the Applicant’s request for insurance documentation, he wrote to his [NAME], from whom he has obtained the building insurance. He asked [NAME] to send the insurance documentation to the Applicant. His bundle contains a letter to [NAME] dated 18th January 2024 where he requests [NAME] disclose the insurance to the Applicant, this is followed by an undated letter to [NAME] reiterating that request. We note this correspondence is around one year after the Applicant’s e-mail sent on 7th January 2023.

65. Having regard to clause 5(11) of the [NAME], we note this requires the Respondent “… whenever required produce to [NAME] the policy of such insurance and the receipt for the last premium of every such insurance…”. It does not specify the timescale within which this must be provided, so we consider it should be provided within a reasonable period. However, we note that this requirement is only triggered where the Applicant requests the

13 documents. There is no requirement to provide it annually, as Mr [NAME] believed.

66. Furthermore, the requirement relates to providing a copy of the insurance policy and receipt for payment of the premium if requested. In other words, it is specific about the insurance documentation the Applicant may request. Therefore, in our judgment, the requirement to disclose this documentation is only triggered if the Applicant requests a copy of the insurance policy. However, we have no evidence that the Applicant specifically requested a copy of the insurance policy.

67. In the e-mail sent on 7th January 2023 the Applicant requested “insurance details”. It is not sufficiently clear that the Applicant is requesting documentation as opposed to details, which of course could be taken from an insurance policy, but does not necessarily amount to a request for a copy of the policy itself.

68. The Applicant’s e-mail sent on 8th May 2023 requests a copy of the Respondent’s “insurance documentation”. However, this also fails to specify which “documentation” it sought. [NAME] typically issue their insured with a number of documents, including an insurance certificate of cover, an insurance policy/schedule, and terms and conditions of cover. Where the Applicant relies on the provisions of the [NAME], it is incumbent on the Applicant to be specific about what is being requested, so that a Tribunal can establish whether the request is made pursuant to the [NAME]. We consider that to be even more important, where the Applicant’s request includes information regarding the serious legal consequences, including the possibility of imprisonment, which it says could result from non- compliance.

69. Therefore, in the absence of a specific request from the Applicant of the insurance policy and/or a receipt confirming payment of the insurance premium, we do not consider clause 3(11) of the [NAME] applies. Accordingly, we find clause 3(11) has not been breached.

Name: Judge Tueje

Date: 13th June 2025 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].

14 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).

15 APPENDIX OF RELEVANT LEGISLATION

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

Section 168 – No forfeiture notice before determination of breach 1. A landlord under a long [NAME] of a dwelling may not serve a notice under section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (c. 20) (restriction on forfeiture) in respect of a breach by a tenant of a covenant or condition in the [NAME] unless subsection (2) is satisfied.

2. This subsection is satisfied if— (a) it has been finally determined on an [NAME] under subsection (4) that the breach has occurred, (b) the tenant has admitted the breach, or (c) a court in any proceedings, or an arbitral tribunal in proceedings pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement, has finally determined that the breach has occurred.

3. But a notice may not be served by virtue of subsection (2)(a) or (c) until after the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the final determination is made.

4. A landlord under a long [NAME] of a dwelling may make an [NAME] to the appropriate tribunal for a determination that a breach of a covenant or condition in the [NAME] has occurred.

5. But a landlord may not make an [NAME] under subsection (4) in respect of a matter which— (a) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post- dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (b) has been the subject of determination by a court, or (c) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement.

6. For the purposes of subsection (4), “appropriate tribunal” means — (a) in relation to a dwelling in England, the First-tier Tribunal...