VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Landlord's Application for Manager Appointment Under Section 24

Case No.

📌 In brief

A landlord can apply to the First-tier Tribunal to appoint a manager to handle certain aspects of a property. In this case, the tribunal allowed the landlord's application to proceed after lifting a stay on the case.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may seek an order appointing a manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 if certain conditions are met.

Topics

appointment of a managerLandlord and Tenant Act 1987

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 if it finds that a relevant person is in breach of obligations related to the management of those premises, or if unreasonable service charges, variable administration charges, or breaches of approved codes of practice have occurred, and if it deems it just and convenient to do so.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal lifted the stay on an application for the appointment of a manager under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

📜 Headnote Official document

This case concerns an application by a landlord for the appointment of a manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The tribunal lifted a stay on the application and set directions for the hearing, including the submission of relevant documents and statements.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AM/LAM/2015/0023 Property : [ADDRESS], Surbiton, Surrey, KT 6 6AW Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] [RESPONDENT] : Mr [COUNSEL] of [NAME] instructed by [NAME] of application : Appointment of a manager Tribunal : Judge Barran Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of directions : 16 June 2017

DIRECTIONS/LIFT OF STAY

2

Full hearing (time/date): Monday 18 September 2017 at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] starting at 10am (or such later time as the Tribunal may notify the parties). Inspection (time/date): To be arranged by the tribunal at the hearing, if required

BACKGROUND (1) The applicant seeks an order appointing a manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (the “Act”). (2) A preliminary notice under section 22 of the Act dated 19 August 2015 was served on the respondent. (3) The applicant now proposes Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME] as Manager. The Respondent proposes a person from the current [COMPANY] as Manager. I agree that the application may be amended accordingly. (4) A CMC was held and I encouraged the parties to meet the [NAME] and to settle this matter by agreement. That option is still open to them. The applicant has made a claim against the respondent in the county court, due to be heard on 4 September 2017. (5) The commercial tenant Ms [APPELLANT] attended the CMC and may apply to be joined as a party. The tribunal will send her these Directions and the parties are directed to copy her in on the Managers’ documents. I thank her, Mr [NAME] and the parties who attended for their assistance at the CMC. These Directions and timetable have been drawn up with their input. (6) Regrettably the terms of the settlement agreed by the parties and endorsed by order of the tribunal dated 17 December 2015 have not succeeded. The stay of the application is therefore lifted and the application received 16 October 2015 is restored. (7) The parties are referred to the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 for guidance on how the application will be dealt with. DIRECTIONS 1. The tribunal will reach its decision on the basis of the evidence produced to it and upon an assessment of the suitability of the [NAME] manager. The tribunal has identified the following issues to be determined:

3 • Is the preliminary notice compliant with section 22 of the Act and/or, if the preliminary notice is wanting, should the tribunal still make an order in exercise of its powers under section 24(7) of the Act? • Has the applicant satisfied the tribunal of any ground(s) for making an order, as specified in section 24(2) of the Act? • Is it just and convenient to make a management order? • Would the [NAME] manager be a suitable appointee and, if so, on the terms and for how long should the appointment be made? • Does the [NAME] manager need any additional powers to levy his own service charge in respect of flat(s) that have not been demised to any lessee, but have been retained by the respondent? • If application is made, should the tribunal make an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to limit the landlord’s costs that may be recoverable through the service charge and/or an order for the reimbursement of any fees paid by the applicant? 2. The parties shall send a copy of these Directions to their [NAME] manager within the next seven days.

3. The respondent shall send a summary of the current insurance policy, receipt for premium paid and invoice demanding 75% share to the applicant within seven days. Documents from the [NAME]

4. In addition to the application and supporting documentation already provided to the tribunal, by 25 August 2017 the parties shall send to the tribunal (3 copies) and to the other party and the commercial tenant: ▪ A written statement of the residential management experience of their [NAME] manager, together with the management plan and [NAME] remuneration and details of any professional indemnity insurance; • A draft management order or terms (including period) they wish the tribunal to include in any order it may make; • Confirmation that the [NAME] manager has read the lease and seen the property and will accept appointment; • Confirmation whether the manager will comply with the current edition of the Code of Practice published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors;

4

The parties’ additional statements 5. By 8 September 2017 the parties shall send an update of their statement to the tribunal (3 copies) with one to the other party and one to the commercial tenant. This should include a summary of the outcome of the county court claim. Documents for the hearing 6. The parties shall use the documents exchanged and sent above ( see Directions 3 & 4) and the bundles already prepared for the hearing in 2015. The Tribunal has one original bundle on file. The Respondent has agreed to send the Tribunal an extra copy of that bundle by 28 August 2017.

7. Any application for an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and/or for the reimbursement of fees will be dealt with at the hearing. The parties may wish to make written representations on this in their statements of case, or orally at the end of the hearing. Hearing/ inspection arrangements 8. The hearing shall take place on Monday 18 September 2017 at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] starting at 10am 9. The hearing is estimated to last for 4 - 5 hours. The hearing should end in time for the tribunal to deliberate on its decision. If either party considers this is an unrealistic estimate, they should write to the tribunal and send a copy to the other party explaining why, two weeks prior to the hearing date.

10. The [NAME] shall attend the hearing for at least one hour. It is likely the tribunal will question them separately, not in each others presence.

11. If the tribunal considers an inspection will assist, it will arrange a time to inspect the property with the parties during the hearing.

Name: V Barran Date: 16 June 2017

NOTES (a) Whenever you send a letter or email to the tribunal you must also send a copy to the other parties and note this on the letter or email.

5 (b) If the applicant fails to comply with these directions the tribunal may strike out all or part of their case pursuant to rule 9(3)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 (“the 2013 Rules”). (c) If the respondent fails to comply with these directions the tribunal may bar them from taking any further part in all or part of these proceedings and may determine all issues against it pursuant to rules 9(7) and (8) of the 2013 Rules.

📊 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 preliminary notice under section 22 of the Act was served on the respondent.
  • The tribunal agreed that the application could be amended to propose a manager from the current company.
  • The stay on the application was lifted because the agreed settlement terms failed.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to lift the stay on the landlord's application for the appointment of a manager.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenants were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to lift the stay because the terms of a previous settlement had not succeeded.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 sections 22 and 24 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the previous settlement terms had failed.

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 might also be able to lift a stay on their own application for a manager.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The failure of the previous settlement terms was a key factor.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases 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.