VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Allows Tenant's Right to Manage Property in London

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted a tenant's application to manage their property, ruling that the tenant was entitled to the right to manage despite disputes over the service of notice and the identification of the landlord.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to acquire the right to manage their property if the claim notice is served correctly according to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

Topics

right to manageservice of noticeidentification of landlord

Provisions

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.79Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.80Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.81

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to acquire the right to manage the property despite disputes over service of notice and identification of the landlord.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tribunal granted the tenant's application to acquire the right to manage the property located at 131 Plough Road, London SW11 2BJ, despite the respondent's objections regarding the service of notice and the identification of the landlord.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2014

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BJ/LRM/2021/0012 P:PAPERREMOTE Property : 131 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] : [COMPANY] of application : Application in relation to the denial of the Right to Manage Tribunal members : Mrs [NAME] and venue of hearing : 13 September 2021 Remote on the papers Date of decision : 13 September 2021

DECISION

2 This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the Applicant and not objected to by the Respondent. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, no-one requested the same, and all the issues could be determined on the papers. The documents that I have been referred to are in an electronic bundle of 133 pages, the contents of which I have recorded. The order made is described below.

Decision of the tribunal The tribunal determines that the Applicant is entitled to acquire the Right to Manage the property known as 131 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]. The application 1. The tribunal has received an application under section 84(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (the “Act”)

2. By a claim notice dated 26 January 2021 the Applicant gave notice that it intended to acquire the right to manage the property known as 131 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (the “Property”) on 3 June 2021.

3. By counter notice dated 1 March 2021 the Respondent disputed the claim alleging that by reason of sections 73(2), 79(3), 79(6), 79(8), 80(5), 80(7), 80(8), 80(9) and 81(3) of the Act the applicant was not entitled to acquire the right to manage the premises specified in the notice.

4. Following an oral case management conference, it was agreed by the parties that the correct Respondent was [RESPONDENT]. Directions dated 4 May 2021 provided for this matter to be considered by way of a paper determination unless either party requested an oral hearing. The only matter for determination was whether the applicant was entitled to acquire the right to manage the premises specified in the notice. The directions provided for the application to stand as the applicant’s statement of case with the respondent making a statement in reply and the applicant having an opportunity to make a supplemental reply. The respondent’s case 5. The respondent made written submissions opposing the right to manage. The respondent stated that it was unsure of the basis of the applicant’s case. The claim notice was addressed to [APPELLANT] t/as [NAME], not the freeholder company which has no association with Mr [NAME]. The freeholder is [NAME]. The notice has been served on the wrong landlord and is must fail. The Applicant’s submissions in reply 6. The applicant made the following submissions in the applicant’s supplementary statement of case:

7. The notice was served on [COMPANY], the registered freeholder at the date of claim together with all possible equitable landlords. [APPELLANT] had asked the managing agents to confirm to the applicant’s solicitors the name of the new landlord however no response had been forthcoming. It had been agreed at the case management conference that [RESPONDENT] was the correct respondent. The notice had been served on the respondent at its registered address, a copy was included in the bundle notwithstanding that it had been entitled to rely on the Land Registry title.

8. The Claim Notice was served on all possible landlords by both first and signed for post. Three claim notices were served on [NAME] addressed to [NAME], Assethold and [NAME] none were returned as undelivered. The identity of the landlord was unclear. The service charge demand from [RESPONDENT] dated 7 December 2020 stated that the freeholder was [NAME] i.e. an unregistered entity; not [APPELLANT].

9. The applicant was of the opinion that it was odd that the only claim notice referred to by the respondent was the one which was addressed to Mr [RESPONDENT] t/as [NAME], the only one served on an incorrect landlord. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 10. The Tribunal determines that the Applicant is entitled to acquire the Right to Manage the Property; the Claim Notice was served on all the parties required by the Act including the registered freeholder, the agreed respondent and the managing agent. The Tribunal noted that the respondent’s representative referred in its submissions to the name of the freeholder incorrectly as [NAME]. ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

i. 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.

4 ii. 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.

iii. 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.

iv. 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.

Name: [NAME]: 13 September 2021

APPENDIX

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

79 Notice of claim to acquire right (1)A claim to acquire the right to manage any premises is made by giving notice of the claim (referred to in this Chapter as a “claim notice”); and in this Chapter the “relevant date”, in relation to any claim to acquire the right to manage, means the date on which notice of the claim is given. (2)The claim notice may not be given unless each person required to be given a notice of invitation to participate has been given such a notice at least 14 days before. (3)The claim notice must be given by a [COMPANY] which complies with subsection (4) or (5). (4)If on the relevant date there are only two qualifying tenants of flats contained in the premises, both must be members of the [COMPANY]. (5)In any other case, the membership of the [COMPANY] must on the relevant date include a number of qualifying tenants of flats contained in the premises which is not less than one-half of the total number of flats so contained. (6)The claim notice must be given to each person who on the relevant date is— (a)landlord under a lease of the whole or any part of the premises, (b)party to such a lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant, or (c)a manager appointed under Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (c. 31) (referred to in this Part as “the 1987 Act”) to act in relation to the premises, or any premises containing or contained in the premises.

5 (7)Subsection (6) does not require the claim notice to be given to a person who cannot be found or whose identity cannot be ascertained; but if this subsection means that the claim notice is not required to be given to anyone at all, section 85 applies. (8)A copy of the claim notice must be given to each person who on the relevant date is the qualifying tenant of a flat contained in the premises.

80Contents of claim notice (1) The claim notice must comply with the following requirements. (2) It must specify the premises and contain a statement of the grounds on which it is claimed that they are premises to which this Chapter applies. (3) It must state the full name of each person who is both— (a)the qualifying tenant of a flat contained in the premises, and (b)a member of the [COMPANY], and the address of his flat. (4) And it must contain, in relation to each such person, such particulars of his lease as are sufficient to identify it, including— (a)the date on which it was entered into, (b)the term for which it was granted, and (c)the date of the commencement of the term. (5) It must state the name and registered office of the [COMPANY]. (6) It must specify a date, not earlier than one month after the relevant date, by which each person who was given the notice under section 79(6) may respond to it by giving a counter-notice under section 84. (7) It must specify a date, at least three months after that specified under subsection (6), on which the [COMPANY] intends to acquire the right to manage the premises. (8) It must also contain such other particulars (if any) as may be required to be contained in claim notices by regulations made by the appropriate national authority. (9) And it must comply with such requirements (if any) about the form of claim notices as may be prescribed by regulations so made.

81 Claim notice: supplementary

6 (1)A claim notice is not invalidated by any inaccuracy in any of the particulars required by or by virtue of section 80. (2)Where any of the members of the [COMPANY] whose names are stated in the claim notice was not the qualifying tenant of a flat contained in the premises on the relevant date, the claim notice is not invalidated on that account, so long as a sufficient number of qualifying tenants of flats contained in the premises were members of the company on that date; and for this purpose a “sufficient number” is a number (greater than one) which is not less than one-half of the total number of flats contained in the premises on that date. (3) Where any premises have been specified in a claim notice, no subsequent claim notice which specifies— (a)the premises, or (b)any premises containing or contained in the premises, may be given so long as the earlier claim notice continues in force. (4) Where a claim notice is given by a [COMPANY] it continues in force from the relevant date until the right to manage is acquired by the company unless it has previously— (a)been withdrawn or deemed to be withdrawn by virtue of any provision of this Chapter, or (b)ceased to have effect by reason of any other provision of this Chapter.

📊 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 serves the claim notice correctly according to the law.
  • The required number of qualifying tenants are registered as members of the RTM company.
  • The statutory conditions under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 are satisfied.
  • The property qualifies as a single building under the Act.
  • Minor inaccuracies in the claim notice do not affect its validity.

❌ 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 decision granted the claimant the right to manage the property located at 131 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE].

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was over whether the claimant was entitled to acquire the right to manage the property specified in the notice.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the claimant, noting that the claim notice was properly served to all required parties, including the registered freeholder and the managing agent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, specifically section 84(3), was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the proper service of the claim notice to all required parties, as required by the Act.

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?

For someone in a similar situation, ensuring proper service of the claim notice to all required parties is crucial to successfully acquiring the right to manage their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents that mattered included the claim notice, the counter-notice, and the service charge demand from the respondent.

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.