VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Granted Right to Manage Property Despite Dissolved Respondents

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted a tenant the right to manage their property even though the previous management companies had been dissolved. This decision was made because the tenant followed all the necessary steps outlined in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

⚖️ Legal holding

Under the relevant property management legislation, an applicant can acquire the right to manage a property when the necessary conditions are met, even if the original management entities are dissolved.

Topics

right to manageleasehold reformmissing landlord

Provisions

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.85

📖 Technical summary

An applicant successfully obtained the right to manage a property despite the dissolution of the management companies, treating the case as a missing landlord scenario.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted the applicant the right to manage a property located at 21-31 (odd numbers) Hill Street, Barwell, Leicester, despite the dissolution of the respondent companies. The decision was based on the applicant's compliance with the statutory requirements under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : BIR/31UE/LOA/2024/0001 Properties :

21 – 31 (odd numbers) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted] (2) [COMPANY] : None Type of application : Application relating to (No Fault) Right to Manage Tribunal members : Judge C Goodall Mr V Ward BSc FRICS – Regional Surveyor

Date and place of hearing : Paper determination Date of decision : 11 June 2024

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

2 Background

1. By an application dated 22 March 2024, the Applicant seeks a determination that it has acquired the right to manage the building at 21 – 31 (odd numbers) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the Property”) following service of a claim notice dated 15 January 2024.

2. The Property consists of six residential flats.

3. The parties to the leases are [COMPANY] (freeholder), [RESPONDENT] (management company) (both companies being “the Respondents”) and the relevant lessee.

4. Under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the Act”), the claim notice must be served upon the freeholder landlord and any party to the lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant. So both Respondents were required to be served.

5. In fact, both [NAME] have been dissolved and so cannot be served.

6. The Tribunal agreed to treat the application as a missing landlord case under section 85 of the Act.

7. The Applicant has provided a bundle of documents which include: a. A copy of the Memorandum and Articles of the Applicant; b. A copy of the lease for [ADDRESS] (and we assume that all the flats are let on identical terms save as to dates and the demise). The lease term is 99 years from 1 May 2008; c. A copy of an Invitation to Participate given to the lessees of 25, 29 and [ADDRESS] which indicates that the members of the Applicant are [APPELLANT] [NAME] (1) and [APPELLANT] and [NAME] (2) and which is dated 12 December 2023; d. A copy of the Claim Notice which states that the members of the [COMPANY] are as set out in the Notice of Invitation to Participate. Mr [NAME] is stated to be the lessee of Flats 21 and 23 Hill St, and Mr [NAME] and Ms [NAME] the joint lessee of Flat 27 Hill St; e. Notification under section 85(3) of the Act to the lessees of 25, 29 and [ADDRESS] confirming that the application to the Tribunal under section 85 of the Act was being made, dated 22 March 2024.

8. No lessee has raised any objection to the application.

3 9. The Tribunal has considered the application on the papers provided and without a hearing and our determination is as set out below. Discussion and determination 10. We are satisfied from our own knowledge and from observation on [ADDRESS] that the Property is a self-contained building containing six residential flats. We are satisfied that the Applicant is a properly constituted [COMPANY]. We are satisfied that all lessees are qualifying tenants (as defined in section 75 of the Act).

11. The Invitation of Participate is in proper form, as required by section 78 of the Act.

12. We are satisfied that the proportion of qualifying tenants who were members of the Applicant as at the date of the Claim Notice constituted not less than half of the qualifying tenants at the Property.

13. We are satisfied that the Claim Notice is also in proper form as required by section 79 of the Act.

14. However, we note that as the [NAME] have been dissolved, it is not possible to ascertain the identity of any person upon whom the Claim Notice should be served.

15. Section 85 of the Act allows the Tribunal to make an order that the Applicant is to acquire the right to manage in these circumstances. We are satisfied that the Applicant has complied with sub-section 85(3) of that section.

16.

Accordingly, we determine that the Applicant acquires the right to manage the Property.

17. We specify that the date of acquisition is to be 24 June 2024 (see section 90(6) of the Act). Appeal

18. Any appeal against this decision must be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Prior to making such an appeal the party appealing must apply, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal within 28 days of the date of issue of this decision (or, if applicable, within 28 days of any decision on a review or application to set aside) identifying the decision to which the appeal relates, stating the grounds on which that party intends to rely in the appeal, and stating the result sought by the party making the application.

Judge C Goodall First-tier Tribunal (Property 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 property is a self-contained building with six residential flats.
  • The applicant company was properly formed.
  • All lessees are qualifying tenants as defined by the Act.
  • The Invitation to Participate was in the correct legal format.
  • The proportion of qualifying tenants who were members of the applicant met the legal requirement.
  • The claim notice was in the correct legal format.
  • The applicant complied with the notification requirements for a missing landlord case.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • It was not possible to identify who should be served with the claim notice because the companies were dissolved.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision granted the tenant the right to manage the property.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the dissolved management companies were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the tenant's compliance with the statutory requirements under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the tenant's compliance with the statutory requirements.

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 may be able to obtain the right to manage their property if they follow the statutory requirements.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence included the claim notice, invitation to participate, and notification under section 85(3) of the Act.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property management rights.

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.