VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant's Request for Property Manager Approved by First-tier Tribunal

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted the request to appoint a property manager for a Victorian house divided into four flats. This decision was made because there were no objections raised and it was considered fair and practical.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have a manager appointed for their property under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 if there are no objections and it is just and convenient.

Topics

tenancy managementproperty management

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s.24

Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Section 24 allows a tribunal to appoint a manager for a property if certain conditions are met. These conditions include the absence of objections and the determination that it is just and convenient to do so.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal approved the appointment of a manager for a property under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal approved the appointment of a manager for a Victorian house converted into four flats under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, as there were no objections and it was deemed just and convenient.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AN/LAM/2025/0018 Property : 127 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] [NAME] [RESPONDENT] Respondent : [redacted] : Appointment of a Manager Tribunal : Judge Martyński Date of decision : 8 August 2025

DECISION

Background A. The Applicants applied for an order appointing [NAME] as a Manager of the subject property under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (the “Act”). B. A preliminary notice under section 22 of the Act dated 23 January 2025 is said to have been served on the Respondent. C. This is an unusual application given that Ms [NAME] (the proposed Manager) was previously appointed as Manager by the Tribunal in 2018 for a period of two years. The tribunal appointment ended in 2020. It appears that Ms [NAME] has been managing the property since her initial appointment despite the coming to an end of the tribunal appointment. D. The property is a Victorian house converted into four flats and the current application to re-appoint Ms [NAME] is made by three out of the four

[NAME]. The freehold interest in the property is held by [COMPANY] which is a company controlled by the [NAME]. E. The tribunal sent a copy of the application and its directions to all [NAME] asking that any leaseholder who objected to the application should respond by 25 July 2025. There were no responses. Decision Given the lack of any objection and the particular history of this matter, I am satisfied that circumstances exist which make it just and convenient for the appointment of the Manager for a period of two years in accordance with the order attached.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed12 cases

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 court found it appropriate to appoint a manager because no one objected to the application.
  • The court considered the specific history of the property when deciding to appoint a manager.
  • The court was satisfied that it was fair and practical to appoint the manager.
  • The application was made by three out of four leaseholders, supporting the need for a manager.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to approve the appointment of a property manager for a Victorian house split into four flats.

Who was involved?

Three tenants requested the appointment of a property manager, while the freehold interest holder did not object.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to approve the appointment because there were no objections and it was deemed fair and practical.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What was the argument that mattered most?

The lack of objections and the fairness and practicality of the appointment were the most important arguments.

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 also be able to appoint a property manager if there are no objections and it is fair and practical.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The preliminary notice under section 22 of the Act and the history of the property manager's previous appointment were relevant.

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 recommended to seek 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.