Tenant Successfully Obtains Right to Manage Property
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled in favour of the tenant who sought the right to manage their property. The decision was based on the statutory requirements set forth in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to acquire the right to manage their property if they meet the statutory requirements under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal granted the claimant's application for the right to manage the property.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal granted the claimant's application for the right to manage the property located at 83-87 Greenwich High Road, London SE10 8JL, under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AL/LRM/2024/0009 Property : 83-87 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] :
Mr [COUNSEL], counsel Respondent : [redacted] : No appearance Type of application : Application in relation to the denial of the Right to Manage under s.84(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Tribunal members : Judge Tagliavini Mr J Naylor FRICS FIRPM Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 27 August 2024
DECISION
2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The applicant is entitled to acquire the right to manage the
subject promises registered under Title No. TGL319668 with
effect from three months after the decision of the First-
tier Tribunal becomes final.*
*It was expressly requested by the applicant that the tribunal
should not include a precise date that is three months from the date of
the decision,i.e.27 November 2024, as the respondent might chose to
exercise its rights of appeal. _________________________________________________ The application 1. This is an application under section 84(3) of the Commonhold ND
Leasehold Reform Act 20022 (the 2002 Act’) for a decision that, on the
relevant date the applicant [COMPANY] was to acquire the Right to
Manage(‘RTM’) premises registered under Title No. TGL319668 and
known variously as 83-87 Greenwich High Road, London SE10
8JL and 87 Greenwich High Road, London SE10 8J. The hearing 1. The applicant was represented by Mr [COUNSEL] of counsel. The respondent did not appear and was not represented.
2. At the hearing, the applicant relied upon a bundle of 64 digital pages and a witness statement of [APPELLANT] dated 23 August 2024. The applicant also provided a copy of the registered title as this had not been included in the bundle. The background 3. By a Claim Notice dated 2 December 2023 the applicant gave notice to the respondent that it intends to acquire the right to manage the subject property on 19 April 2024. The respondent served a counter-notice dated 17 January 2024 which denied the applicant’s right to acquire the RTM on the grounds that: (i) The premises specified in the Notice are not premises to which
s.72(1) of the 2002 Act applies. (ii) The applicant [COMPANY] is not a [COMPANY] as defined by
s.73(2) of the 2002 Act.
3 (iii) The Claim Notice has not correctly identified the premises as
required by s.80(2) of the 2002 Act 4. Subsequently, the responded fail to comply with tribunal’s directions dated 9 May 2024 and gave no further particulars of the matters alleged in its counter-notice. Consequently, the applicant made an application to debar the respondent from paying any further role in the application. However, as the respondent failed to attend the substantive hearing, the applicant did not pursue this application and therefore the tribunal made no decision in respect of it. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 5. The tribunal was satisfied from the documents provided by the applicant
that it is entitled to acquired the RTM the subject premises 6. The tribunal is satisfied the premises, comprising 14 flats on five floor
over ground floor commercial premises and as seen by the tribunal on
[ADDRESS] view, , are premises to which s.72(1) of the 2002 Act
applies and have been correctly identified in the Claim notice as required
by s.80(2) of the 2002 Act. 5. Further, the tribunal is satisfied the [COMPANY] is a properly constituted company for the purposes of acquiring the RTM pursuant to s.72(1) of the Act. 6. Therefore, the tribunal finds the applicant is entitled to acquire the right
to manage the subject property registered under Title No. TGL319668
with effect from three months after the decision of the first-tier
Tribunal becomes final. Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 27 August 2024
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 application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.
4 If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application 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 making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application 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) Tenant Wins Right to Manage Property in First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Acquires Right to Manage Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) RTM Company Entitled to Manage Property - First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Freeholder to Vary Leases for Sinking Fund and I…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Works on Residential Estate
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Granted Right to Manage Property by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Financial Penalty to £500
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 applicant provided sufficient documents to satisfy the tribunal of its entitlement to acquire the Right to Manage.
- The premises, consisting of 14 flats over ground floor commercial units, met the requirements of the 2002 Act.
- The applicant company was properly formed to acquire the Right to Manage under the Act.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The respondent's argument that the premises did not meet the requirements of s.72(1) of the 2002 Act was not accepted.
- The respondent's claim that the applicant company was not defined by s.73(2) of the 2002 Act was rejected.
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's application for the right 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 the statutory requirements were met.
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 that the tenant met the statutory requirements for the right to manage.
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 successfully obtain the right to manage their property.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents related to the statutory requirements 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 always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving the right to manage property.
