VadeLab
Allowed in PartFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Varies Management Order but Rejects Cost Claims

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal varied a management order but did not address the costs associated with terminating a contract with a person. The Tribunal ruled that it lacked the authority to decide on these costs under the current statutes.

⚖️ Legal holding

The Tribunal has the power to vary a management order under section 24(9) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

Topics

management orderservice charge accounttermination costs

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s.24

The appropriate tribunal can appoint a manager to handle the management of certain premises when they are satisfied with specific conditions. These conditions include breaches of obligations related to the management of the premises, unreasonable service charges, unreasonable variable administration charges, non-compliance with approved codes of practice, or other circumstances deemed just and convenient.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal varied the management order but declined to address the costs associated with terminating the contract with a person.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal varied the management order but declined to address the costs associated with terminating the contract with Bamptons, citing lack of jurisdiction under the relevant statutes.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case reference : LON/00BA/LVM/2019/0002

Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondents : [redacted]

Representative : N/A

Type of [NAME] : Variation of order for appointment of [APPELLANT]

Tribunal member : Tribunal Judge I Mohabir

Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of decision : 19 March 2019

DECISION

Background

1. The Applicant [APPELLANT], [NAME], seeks a variation of the order dated 11 December 2018 (“the order”) appointing him as the [APPELLANT] of the subject property.

2. Mr [APPELLANT] predecessor as [APPELLANT] was [NAME] who was appointed by the Tribunal pursuant to an order dated 17 July 2017.

3. It seems that during Mr [NAME] tenure he appointed “[NAME]” to manage the property entirely on his behalf and entered into a management contract with that firm. The contract contains an express term that it may only be terminated by either party on the other giving 3 months’ notice in writing at any time. By reason of Mr [NAME] appointment, the services of [NAME] are no longer required and he wishes to or has terminated the contract.

4. The variations sought by the Applicant in this [NAME] are as follows. Firstly, a determination that any costs incurred in terminating the contract with [NAME] are not payable by the service charge account but by Mr [APPELLANT] personally. It is the Applicant’s case that there is no express term in the order that permitted Mr [NAME] to delegate his entire management duties or functions to [NAME] and, therefore, any termination costs are not payable by the service charge account.

5. Secondly, to amend the order so that the rights and liabilities of the freeholder become those of the [APPELLANT].

6. Thirdly, to include a term permitting the [APPELLANT] to delegate to other employees of his firm, [APPELLANT].

7. Fourthly, to amend paragraph (iv) under the “Maintenance” heading in the Schedule of Functions and Services of the order extending the time for reviewing the decision as to the replacement of the staircase and any possible tendering process that may follow.

8. Each of these points is dealt with below. In relation to the second to fourth proposed amendments, the Applicant has provided a draft order, which is found at pages 17-25 in the hearing bundle.

9. On 4 February 2019, the Tribunal issued Directions, which included a direction that any Respondent should notify the Applicant if they objected to the [NAME]. No such objection has been received and the [NAME] is, therefore not opposed.

Relevant Law

10. The Tribunal’s power to vary a management order arises under section 24(9) of the landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (“the Act”). It is not necessary to set out this provision, as it self-evident.

Decision

11. The Tribunal’s determination took place on 19 March 2019 and was based solely on the Applicant’s statement of case and other documentary evidence filed in support.

12. As to the [NAME] contract, in its directions, the Tribunal raised the issue with the Applicant as to whether it had jurisdiction in this [NAME] to determine whether Mr [NAME] or the service charge account should be liable for any termination costs.

13. The Applicant submitted that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction under section 24(4)(a) of the Act to make an order with respect to:

“(a) such matters relating to the exercise by the [APPELLANT] of his functions under the order”.

14. Alternatively, it was submitted that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under section 27A of the landlord and Tenant Act (as amended) to determine to whom and by whom service charges are payable.

15. The Tribunal did not accept these submissions as being correct. It was satisfied that any costs incurred under the [NAME] contract is not a matter relating to Mr [APPELLANT] functions as the [APPELLANT] or is incidental or ancillary thereto within the meaning of section 24(4)(a) of the Act.

16. The issue is whether Mr [NAME] is entitled to seek an indemnity for any termination costs under the [NAME] contract from the service charge account. As a matter of contract, Mr [NAME] has primary liability for any termination costs incurred under the [NAME] contract. If it is his case that he is entitled to an indemnity from the service charge contract, he will have to seek a determination on the point if the Applicant is not prepared to provide such an indemnity. As a matter of contract, [NAME] cannot recover any termination costs from the Applicant. It is an entirely separate contractual issue and is not directly related to the performance of Mr [NAME] management functions under the order within the meaning of section 24(4)(a) of the Act.

17. The Tribunal also did not consider that it could make a determination under section 27A of the 1985 Act because no such [NAME] was before it. This [NAME] is jurisdiction specific and the Tribunal cannot assume a service charge jurisdiction. As is stated above, it will be for Mr [NAME] to establish that he can obtain an indemnity from the service charge account for any termination costs incurred under the [NAME] contract.

18. As to the second to fourth proposed variations to the order, the Tribunal approves these for the reasons set out in the Applicant’s statement of case and on the basis that these are not opposed by the Respondents.

19. The Applicant is to file a “clean” copy of the amended order within 14 days of service of this decision.

Costs

20. As the Tribunal considers that the [NAME] has properly been brought, it does not consider it just or equitable for an order being made under section 20C of the 1985 Act in relation to any costs incurred by the Applicant in bringing it.

Name: Tribunal Judge I Mohabir Date: 19 March 2019

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.

If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The tribunal approved the proposed variations to the order because the applicant provided a statement of case and the respondents did not object.
  • The tribunal found it just and equitable not to make a cost order because the application was properly brought.
  • The tribunal has the power to vary a management order under section 24(9) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to vary the management order but did not address the costs associated with terminating the contract with Bamptons.

Who was involved?

The case involved a manager, leaseholders, and the First-tier Tribunal.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to vary the management order but did not address the costs because it lacked jurisdiction under the relevant statutes.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 24(9) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to address the costs associated with terminating the contract with Bamptons.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was partly for and partly against the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should carefully consider the jurisdictional limitations when seeking to vary a management order.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents related to the management order and the contract with Bamptons mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days.

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

Yes, it is recommended to get a solicitor for a case like this.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.