VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenants Successfully Extend Term of Tribunal-Appointed Manager

Case No.

📌 In brief

Tenants asked to extend the term of a manager appointed by the tribunal to manage their property. The application was successful because there was no opposition and the current management was satisfactory.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to extend the term of a tribunal-appointed manager if there is satisfactory progress and no substantive dispute.

Topics

tenancy managementtribunal-appointed managers

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s.24

This section allows a tribunal to appoint a manager to handle certain management duties of a property when specific conditions are met. These conditions include breaches of obligations related to property management, unreasonable service charges, or non-compliance with approved codes of practice.

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

📖 Technical summary

The claimants sought to extend the term of a tribunal-appointed manager for their property. The application was granted without opposition.

📜 Headnote Official document

Tenants applied to extend the term of a tribunal-appointed manager for their property. The application was granted as there was no opposition and satisfactory progress had been reported.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/00HH/LVM/2023/0006

Property

:

[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] [APPELLANT] 3 (2) [COUNSEL] and [COUNSEL] 5 (3)

Representative

: None

Respondent

Tribunal appointed manager

:

Unit-2 ([COMPANY] (1) [NAME] (Receivers)

[NAME] [NAME],MARLA, MNAEA

Representative

:

None

Type of Application

:

Variation of an Order appointing a Manager Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

Tribunal Member(s)

:

D Banfield FRICS

Date of Decision

: 27 December 2023

DECISION

2 Background

1. On 1 March 2022 the Tribunal appointed [NAME] [NAME] [NAME], MNAEA, MARLA as manager of the property for a term expiring 29 February 2024.

2. By way of an application received on 31 August 2023 the Applicants seek to vary the Management Order by extending the term of [NAME] [NAME] appointment. The grounds relied upon are contained within the application form.

3. The Tribunal made Directions on 6 October 2023 requiring the Landlord and each leaseholder to complete a pro-forma indicating whether they agreed or disagreed with the application. If an extension of the Management Order was opposed, the Respondents were to provide a statement addressing the reasons for the objection. If the Landlord or a leaseholder does not return the pro- forma the Tribunal will assume they agree with the application.

4. The Tribunal considered that the application was likely to be suitable for determination on the papers alone without an oral hearing in accordance with Rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013 unless a party objected in writing. No party has objected and the application is therefore so determined.

5. On receipt of the hearing bundle the Tribunal reviewed the application and considered it is still suitable to be determined on the papers there being no substantive dispute on the facts and no response having been received from the landlord.

6. References to page numbers in the hearing bundle are indicated as [*]

Evidence

7. A copy of the Tribunal’s decision of 18 February 2022 was enclosed which included the Management Order [19].

8. The variations to the Order requested [57] are to extend the existing appointment by amending paragraph 3 to 1 March 2024 to 28 February 2026 and paragraph 20(a) from £210 to £230 being the annual fee per flat.

9. A progress report was included [59] and a Management Plan dated October 2023 [62] together with copies of insurance and professional membership certificates.

Decision

10. This is an unopposed application to extend the term of a Tribunal appointed manager. Satisfactory progress has been reported to having

3 been made and a management plan for future progress provided. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the requested extension should be granted the terms of which are to be varied as referred to in paragraph 8 above.

11. For clarity the varied sections of the Order are;

3. The Manager’s appointment shall start on 1 March 2024 (“the start date”) and shall end on 28 February 2026 (“the end date”). 20. The sums payable by way of Manager’s fees are:

(a) an annual fee of £230 per flat for the first year of the

appointment and thereafter subject to annual review. 12. All other terms of the Tribunal’s order remain unchanged.

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 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

  • There was satisfactory progress and no substantive dispute.
  • The tenant met the statutory requirements to exercise the right to manage premises.
  • Urgency and necessity for safety and compliance allowed dispensation from consultation.
  • The landlord could not be found, allowing the tenant to purchase the freehold interest.
  • Where there is urgency and no leaseholder objects, a landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to grant the tenants' request to extend the term of the tribunal-appointed manager.

Who was involved?

The tenants and the tribunal-appointed manager were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the extension because there was no opposition and satisfactory progress had been reported.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 section 24 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the satisfactory progress reported by the manager.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the tenants.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also be able to extend the term of a tribunal-appointed manager if there is no opposition and satisfactory progress.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Progress reports and a management plan were important documents.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person wishing to appeal this decision must seek permission to do so by making a written application to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It is always recommended to get 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.