VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Successfully Acquires Right to Manage Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the tenant was entitled to manage the property because they met the necessary conditions under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to acquire the right to manage a property if they comply with the requirements set forth in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

Topics

Right to ManageLeasehold ReformTenant Rights

Provisions

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.79(5)Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.80(8)Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.80(9)

📖 Technical summary

The claimant successfully obtained the right to manage the property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted the tenant the right to manage the property, finding that the tenant had satisfied the requirements set forth in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/00HN/LRM/2021/0004

Property

:

[APPELLANT], 7 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[NAME] [APPELLANT]

Respondent: [redacted]

:

[COUNSEL] Solicitors

Type of [NAME]

:

Entitlement to exercise right to manage

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Judge Tildesley OBE

Date of Decision

:

10 August 2021

DECISION

2

Background

1. On 7 May 2021 the Applicant applied for a determination that it was entitled on 10 March 2021 to acquire the Right to [APPELLANT], 7 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] and appurtenant property comprised within title number DT56385 (the Premises) under Part 2 Chapter 1 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (2002 Act).

2. On 13 April 2021 the Respondent served a counter notice stating that the Applicant was not entitled to acquire the Right to Manage by virtue of the following reasons:

• The claim notice was not given by an [COMPANY] which complied with section 79(5) of the 2002 Act. • The claim notice did not contain the particulars required by section 80(8) of the 2002 Act • The claim notice did not comply with the requirements about the form of claim notices as prescribed by the regulations in accordance with section 80(9) of the 2002 Act.

3. On 24 June 2021 the Tribunal directed a determination on the papers, and for the parties to provide their statements of case. The Respondent did not supply a statement of case.

4. The Applicant supplied a hearing bundle. The Tribunal refers to pages in [ ]

Findings

5. The Tribunal finds the following

• On 7 August 2020 the Applicant was incorporated at [NAME] under the company registration number 12799612 with two initial subscriber members, [NAME] and [NAME], as shown in the Certificate of Incorporation and Memorandum of Association [69].

• On 7 August 2020, immediately on incorporation of the Applicant, the Applicant appointed [NAME] as a member of the company to be regarded as jointly being a member with [NAME], together [NAME] tenants of Flat 4 [APPELLANT]. The Applicant immediately on incorporation, also appointed [APPELLANT] and [APPELLANT], together

3 [NAME] tenants of Flat 3 [APPELLANT]. The Applicant has also appointed [APPELLANT], a [NAME] of Flat 2 [APPELLANT], on 21 January 2021 - as shown in the Register of Members [90].

• Notices of Invitation to Participate were served on the two non-participating [NAME] tenants at the block on 15 February 2021 [92]–[96].

• The Applicant served on the Respondent the Claim Notice dated 10 March 2021 [10] illustrating under Schedule 1 the full names of persons who were both [NAME] tenants and members of the company.

• The Applicant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of Section 79 (5) of the 2002 Act in that the names under Schedule 1 of the Claim Notice were not less than one-half of the total number of flats contained in the premises. There were six flats and [NAME] tenants in the building and four of the [NAME] tenants were shown in Schedule 1 to the Notice.

• The Applicant has complied with Section 79 (3) of the 2002 Act by producing the Office Copy entries of Title [138 – 158] which demonstrated the basis on which they are [NAME] tenants.

• In responding to a request for information on 17 March 2021 the Applicant provided the Respondent with a copy of the Register of Members, as well as, copies of correspondence withdrawing previous claim notice; office copy entries for each [NAME]; copy of correspondence serving the Claim Notice; copy of invitations to participation and cover letters serving the same; and copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company.

• The Respondent has failed to specify the basis in which Section 79 (5) of the 2002 Act has not been complied with.

• The form of applications for membership from each of the [NAME] tenants participating in this claim [168-172] was in accordance with Article 26(1) of the Model Articles of the Company.

• The Applicant has provided evidence and confirmations dealing with paragraph 1 of the Respondent's Counter Notice that the members referred to in the Claim Notice were correctly entitled to become members. In doing so, the Applicant has shown compliance with the requirement of the Section 80(8) and (9) of the 2002 Act.

4

Decision

6. The Tribunal is, therefore, satisfied that the Applicant was entitled on the 10 March 2021 to acquire the Right to Manage the Premises. In accordance with section 90(4) of the 2002 Act, the acquisition date is three months after the determination becomes final.

7. The Tribunal is minded to order the Respondent to reimburse the Applicant with the [NAME] fee of £100 payable within 28 days from the date of this decision. The reasons are (1) the Applicant has been successful (2) the Respondent did not submit a statement of case. The Respondent is entitled to make representations within 7 days from the date of this decision. If no representations are made the decision on reimbursement of fees becomes final without further order.

5

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] 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 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:

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 tenant complies with the statutory requirements under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
  • The tenant meets all statutory requirements under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
  • The tenant satisfies the requirements of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
  • The tenant complies with the requirements set forth in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
  • The tenant is able to prove they have met the necessary conditions as outlined by the Act.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided cases.)

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tenant was entitled to manage the property.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the tenant because they met the statutory requirements for obtaining the right to manage the property.

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 should ensure they meet the statutory requirements to obtain the right to manage their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents that mattered included the claim notice, the register of members, and the correspondence with the landlord.

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 a case 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.