Interim Property Manager Appointed for Building Works
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appointment of an a person property manager to manage building works for a limited period, bypassing the usual consultation process with tenants.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to appoint an a person property manager for a limited period to manage certain works if the consultation requirements are dispensed with.
📖 What the law says
The appropriate tribunal can decide to waive consultation requirements for certain building works or long-term agreements if it finds it reasonable to do so. Consultation requirements include providing details of proposed works or agreements to tenants, obtaining estimates, inviting tenants to suggest additional estimators, considering tenant observations, and giving reasons for carrying out works or entering into agreements.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal allowed the appointment of an a person property manager for a limited period and authorised the manager to collect service charges.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appointment of an interim property manager for a limited period to manage building works, dispensing with the usual consultation requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: [RESPONDENT]-TIER TRIBUNAL
[NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case reference : LON/00AN/LAM/2018/0014
Property : 384 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
Representative : Non attendance
Type of application : Appointment of Manager and Application for the dispensation of consultation requirements pursuant to S. 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Tribunal member(s) : Judge Professor Robert M. [NAME] (Professional Member; DipArch RIBA)
Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Date of Hearing
Date of decision : 9th January 2019
17 January 2019
DECISION
Preamble
1. This matter was dealt with by an oral hearing on the above date. A proposed consent order was handed to the tribunal to approve. The tribunal was unable to do so with regard to the entirety of the proposed order. It could approve the parts of the proposed order dealing with the time limited appointment of the [NAME] manager, (see below), but not otherwise. Bearing in mind the nature of the present application the tribunal indicated that what was required of the parties about the appointment of a manager was only possible if a fresh application for the appointment of a manager was made to this tribunal.
2. As part of the order the applicant proposed a provision allowing her legal costs of £4,000. The respondent did not agree to this element of the proposed order. On considering submissions in that regard the tribunal was of the view that it could not make such a costs order. The applicant sought to assert that these costs were in effect part of the remuneration of the [NAME] manager, (as a disbursement), and therefore payable under section 24(5) of the above Act. The tribunal took the view that this was inappropriate as the costs arose prior to the appointment and were therefor not capable of being a part of the remuneration. The tribunal therefore declines to include a costs award. A second part of the proposed order was also not agreed by the parties and that related to a 10% fee payable to the [NAME] manager on the cost of works carried out. The tribunal took the view that this was a proper remuneration for the [NAME] manager and has therefore allowed such a fee as set out below.
3. Order
4. In this order the following terms shall have the following meaning: -
A. The property” includes all those parts of the property known as 384 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] under title number LN96547 comprised of the ground floor commercial unit and the 3 residential flats above and common parts (if any).
B. “the landlords” means the [RESPONDENT] second third and fourth respondents or in the event of the vesting of the freehold title (LN 96547) or head lease (NGL 612815) of the property in another, the landlords successors in title.
C. “[NAME]” the ground floor commercial unit owner and the three residential long leaseholders at the property
[APPELLANT]. “the [NAME] property manager” is [APPELLANT]
E. “the works” the building/roof repairs arranged by the applicant and carried out by [NAME] ([APPELLANT] costing £16,754.78
It is hereby ordered as follows:
5. This order is made in anticipation of a new application to this tribunal by the applicant for the appointment of a manager.
6. In accordance with s.24(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 the tribunal hereby allows the retrospective appointment of the applicant as [NAME] property manager of the property for the period 01 August 2018 to 30 September 2018, being the period she arranged the works.
7. The applicant shall be granted dispensation under S.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the consultation requirements provided by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to the works.
8. The applicant is authorised in her capacity as [NAME] manager to issue service charge demands to the [NAME] in relation to the works and to apply a charge of 10% of the total costs of the works.
9. The [NAME] manager shall during the above mentioned period manage the property in accordance with:
(a) The directions and schedule of functions and services attached to this order;
(b) The respective obligations of the landlord and the leases by which the flats at the Property are demised and in particular with regard to repair, decoration, provision of services and insurance of the Property.
Name: Judge Prof Robert M Abbey Date: 17 January 2019
Rights of appeal
By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure ([RESPONDENT]-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) 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 application for permission must be made to the [RESPONDENT]-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case.
The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.
If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.
The application 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 making the application is seeking.
If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]).
DIRECTIONS
1. The [NAME] manager shall be entitled to remuneration (which for the avoidance of doubt shall be recoverable as part of the service charges of leases of the Property) in accordance with the provisions of the above order.
2. The [NAME] manager shall be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for further directions.
SCHEDULE OF FUNCTIONS AND SERVICES
Service charge
(i) Demand and collect service charges and other payment due from the lessees in relation to the works.
(ii) Instruct solicitors to recover unpaid service charges and any other monies due in relation to the works.
Accounts
(i) Maintain efficient records and accounts regarding the cost of the works which are open for inspection by the lessor and lessees. Upon request, produce for inspection, receipts or other evidence of expenditure.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Skip Consultation for Urgent Cladding Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Helibar Works Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Varies Prohibition Order to Allow Residence
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Right to Manage Over Premises
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Tenancy: Case Summary
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £372/week Rent for Assured Tenancy in Central London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants £18,075.94 Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Successfully Obtains Right to Manage Property Despite Procedural I…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Flat Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £220/week Rent for Assured Tenancy in Shoreham
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 claimant complied with the necessary statutory requirements.
- The works in question are urgent and necessary.
- There are no significant objections from other parties involved.
- The claimant challenges a defective notice or process.
- The property's condition and market comparables are considered in the decision.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant fails to engage in the proceedings actively.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision allowed the appointment of an interim property manager for a limited period to manage building works.
Who was involved?
The tenant requested the appointment of an interim property manager, while the landlord did not attend the hearing.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to allow the appointment because the works needed to be managed promptly, and full consultation would delay the process.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 20ZA and 24 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that the works needed prompt management without undue delay was crucial.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation can seek to appoint an interim property manager if the works require prompt attention.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence of the need for prompt management of the works was important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
