Tenant Secures Right to Manage Despite Uncooperative Landlord
📌 In brief
A tenant successfully gained the Right to Manage over their property even though the landlord did not respond to the a person. The First-tier Tribunal ruled in favour of the tenant, confirming their right to manage the property.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to the Right to Manage over their premises if they comply with the statutory requirements and the landlord fails to respond.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant successfully obtained the Right to Manage over the premises despite the landlord's unresponsiveness.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant sought the Right to Manage over their premises under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Despite the landlord's failure to respond, the Tribunal granted the claimant the Right to Manage on the basis that all statutory requirements had been met.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BJ/LOA/2024/0003 Property : 5 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT] Respondent : [redacted] :
Type of [NAME] : [NAME] in relation to the the Right to Manage under s.84(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Judge : Judge Shepherd Date of Decision : 7th January 2025
DECISION
1. In this case the Applicant company is seeking to obtain the Right to Manage pursuant to Chapter 1 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“The Act”). The Respondent freeholder has played no part in the proceedings. The Applicant has served the Respondent at a number of addresses in the UK and on the British Virgin Islands. This has not prompted a response towards the [NAME] either positively or negatively.
Accordingly, the Applicants have made an [NAME] to the Tribunal for an order that the company is to acquire the right to manage the premises in circumstances where the landlord is not
2
traceable. Strictly speaking this [NAME] is not necessary because the Landlord is traceable to the addresses used by the Applicant but has failed to respond.
2. I am satisfied that the Applicant has taken all necessary steps to notify the Respondent of the [NAME]. I am also satisfied that the Applicant has complied with the requirements of section 78-80 of the Act in that a notice inviting participation was sent pursuant to the requirements in section 78 and a satisfactory claim notice was served in accordance with section 79 and 80 of the Act.
3. Accordingly I determine that on the relevant date ( 13th November 2024) the Applicant was entitled to acquire the Right to Manage the premises.
Judge Shepherd
7th January 2025
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] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-[NAME]-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber 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
3
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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service Charge Limitation Ruling by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Skip Consultation for Urgent Cladding Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Lease Breaches
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Emergency Remediation Works Approved Without Prior Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Under s.20ZA
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Management Company Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Repai…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Communal Door Lock Repairs
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
- Works are considered urgent and necessary.
- There is no substantial prejudice to the respondents.
- The landlord fails to respond to the statutory requirements.
- Emergency remediation works can be done without prior consultation if there is no objection.
- Dispensation from consultation requirements is reasonable for urgent lift works.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant was allowed to gain the Right to Manage over their property.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord of the property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the tenant because all statutory requirements were met and the landlord did not respond.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 sections 78, 79, 80, and 84(3) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The tenant argued that they had followed all the necessary steps and the landlord had failed to respond.
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 apply for the Right to Manage if they follow the statutory requirements and the landlord does not respond.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the tenant's compliance with the statutory requirements and the lack of response from the landlord mattered.
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 seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving the Right to Manage.
