Tribunal Varies Management Order in Property Dispute

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference

: CAM/26UK/LVM/2018/0003

Property

: 8 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant

: [redacted]

: Mr [COUNSEL] Counsel

Respondent (1)

: Mr [COUNSEL]

: Mr [COUNSEL] Counsel

Respondent (2) : Mrs [COUNSEL]

In Person

Respondent (3) : Mr [RESPONDENT] In Person

Type of [NAME] : To vary the orders dated 15 December 2015

and 23 [APPELLANT] 2016 by which the tribunal

appointed a manager - s24 Landlord and

Tenant Act 1987

Tribunal Members : Judge [NAME] [NAME] (EstMan) FRICS

Mr [NAME] and venue of : 12 November 2018 Determination

Watford Tribunal Hearing Centre

Date of Decision : 15 November 2018

DECISION

2

The issue(s) before the tribunal and its decision(s)

1. The [NAME] before us was made pursuant to s24(9) Landlord and Tenant

Act 1987 and we were asked to vary the management order made on 15

December 2015 as varied by an order made on 23 [APPELLANT] 2016.

2. A draft order had been provided to us [25] but its terms were not very precise

and to an extent more recent events had overtaken the relief sought in that

draft.

3. All material parties attended the hearing and it was therefore a useful exercise

to go over the present impasse and to give guidance to the parties as to how

matters should now proceed in order that the manager can carry out the

functions required of him.

4. In so far as may be appropriate we set out below in further orders, guidance and directions which the parties shall comply with. A summary of our decisions is

as follows:

4.1 Mr [NAME] shall pay to Mr [NAME] a contribution of £3,995.00 by 5pm

Friday 30 November 2018 and if not paid Mr [NAME] shall pursue

payment - see paragraph 18 below;

4.2 No repairs are required to the wall – see paragraph 22 below;

4.3 The external stairway from the rear of the first floor flat down to the rear garden is within the demise of the first floor flat and is not to be included

in the schedule of proposed works – see paragraph 23 below;

4.4 The costs to be incurred in connection with the proposed appointment

of the third party surveyor shall be borne equally by Mr [NAME] and Mr

[NAME] – see paragraph 34 below; and

4.5 In the absence of the express agreement between Mr [NAME] and Mr

[NAME], the costs of the new floor plans and calculation of floor areas

are not costs reasonably incurred and they are not obliged to contribute

to them – see paragraph 40 below.

[APPELLANT] reference in this Decision to a number in square brackets ([ ]) is a reference to the page number of the hearing file provided to us for our use at the hearing.

Procedural background The Property and the parties 5. The property was originally constructed as a house in the early to mid-1900’s.

Subsequently it was adapted to create two modest self-contained flats.

6. On 1 June 2003 a [NAME] granted two long leases of part:

6.1 The lease of the ground floor flat was granted to a Mr [NAME] [94].

That lease was registered at HM Land Registry on 5 May 2005 and it was

allocated title number HD441118. The premium said to have been paid

was £59,900. On 6 June 2006 the applicant (Mr [APPELLANT]) and his then

wife Mrs [APPELLANT] [NAME] [NAME] were registered at HM Land Registry as

3

the proprietors. The price stated to have been paid was £99,500. On 18

June 2018 Mr [NAME] was registered as the sole proprietor

6.2 The lease of the first floor flat was granted to a [NAME] [NAME]. That

lease was also registered at HM Land Registry on 5 May 2005 and it was

allocated title number HD441119. The premium said to have been paid

was £59,900. On 10 May 2011 the third respondent (Mr [RESPONDENT]) was

registered at HM Land Registry as sole proprietor. The price stated to

have been paid was £99,000.

7. The freehold interest was registered at HM Land Registry on 30 [APPELLANT] 1985

and it was allocated title number HD428078. On 9 March 2004 the second

respondent (Mrs [RESPONDENT]) was registered at HM Land Registry as sole proprietor.

The price stated to have been paid on 7 October 2003 was £136,000.

8. By a Decision dated 15 December 2015 [154] (the first decision) the tribunal

appointed Mr [APPELLANT] as manager. By a Decision dated 23 [APPELLANT] 2016 [181] (the second decision) the first decision was varied and the first respondent (Mr [RESPONDENT]) was appointed as manager in place of Mr [NAME] as from 15 September 2016 and he was appointed for a term of four years from 15

December 2016, so that his appointment shall terminate on 15 December 2019.

9. To recap the parties are follows:

Applicant: [redacted]

(Originally the applicants were Mr [APPELLANT] and his wife,

Mrs [NAME], but given that Mr [NAME] is now the sole

registered proprietor of the flat, Mr [APPELLANT] is now the sole

applicant.

Respondent 1: Mr [APPELLANT] The manager

Respondent 2: Mrs [RESPONDENT] The freeholder/landlord

Respondent 3: Mr [RESPONDENT] The lessee of the first floor flat (FFF)

Mrs [NAME] and Mr [NAME] are cousins who are married to one another and, so far

as we are aware, they live in the FFF.

At the hearing Mr [NAME] as represented by Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME]

was represented by Mr [NAME].

Mr & Mrs [NAME] both attended and participated to an extent but neither had

served a statement of case or witness statements.

The leases 10. The two leases having been granted at the same time by the same person on the same date they are broadly in common form.

4

Material for present purposes are:

10.1 The lease of the GFF granted a term of 99 years from 1 June 2003 at a

ground rent commencing at £150 pa and rising to £1,600 pa;

10.2 The lease of the FFF granted a term of 999 years from 1 June 2003 at a

ground rent of a peppercorn;

10.3 Each lease provides that the lessee’s share of the Maintenance Charge

(the service charge) is one half.

10.4 (Subject to one minor exception) the Second Schedule of each lease

describes the Demised Property in the following terms:

“The Flat specified in Paragraph 3 of the Particulars and shown (for the

purposes of identification only) edged red on the plan 2 annexed hereto

ALL OF WHICH premises for the purposes of obligations as well as

grant (but subject to the provisions herein contained prohibiting

decoration or alteration of the exterior of the Property by the Lessee).

INCLUDE (i) The internal plaster tiles or other coverings of the walls bounding the Flat and the doors, doorframes, windows and window frames fitted in such walls and the glass fitted in such window frames. (ii) … (vi) The minor exception is that the lease of the FFF refers to “… plan 2 annexed & plan 3 hereto …” (sic).

The demise of the FFF in fact comprises both the first floor and also the roof space above which has been adapted to make it habitable, plus the rear garden which is accessed via a rear external stairway leading down from the first floor into the garden.

The floor plans are fairly basic but adequate. Both leases have attached a ‘Plan 1’ They are the same plans and differ only as to the red edging. There does not appear to be a Plan 2 attached to either of the two leases. The FFF lease has a Plan 3 which is an HM Land Registry plan showing the location of [ADDRESS].

Whilst the numbering of the plans is inconsistent the extent of each demise is quite clear and was not in issue. Also quite clear and not in issue was the allocation of one half of the service charge to each lease.

The original appointments of the managers and further background 11. As recorded in the first decision Mrs [NAME] accepted that a manager should be appointed because she had suffered a number of legal and medical difficulties and had not had the time or ability to manage the Property effectively. Thus it was that Mr [NAME], then of [NAME] came to be appointed. Mr [NAME] made a levy of £3,995 on each lessee so that he was in funds to carry out his appointment. The [NAME] paid that sum to [NAME], but Mr [NAME] did not.

5

12. Mr [NAME] subsequently left [NAME] and moved away from London. Mr [NAME] requested the tribunal to vary the management order so as to appoint someone else in his place. [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] of Ringley’s was nominated in place of Mr [NAME] but in the event [NAME] [NAME] was unable to attend the hearing and declined to send a representative. Mrs [COUNSEL] proposed that Mr [COUNSEL] be appointed in place of Mr [NAME]. Having made due enquiries the tribunal appointed Mr [NAME] – hence the second decision.

13. Mr [NAME] has raised a number of concerns about Mr [NAME] stewardship of the Property. Rightly or wrongly Mr [NAME] has formed the view that Mr [NAME] is too close to Mr & Mrs [NAME], he takes guidance and directions from them and that their interests and issues prevail over his. We need not go into the detail but some examples that Mr [NAME] raised include:

13.1 Meetings on site with Mr & Mrs [NAME] to which he, Mr [NAME], was not

invited;

13.2 The failure of Mr [NAME] to pursue Mr [NAME] for the payment of the levy of

£3,995;

13.3 Overly friendly/personal correspondence with the [NAME];

13.4 Reluctance/refusal to provide Mr [NAME] with copy

documents/correspondence which he requested;

13.5 The instruction of Mr [NAME] Of [NAME] to prepare a

schedule of work in which a ‘Mr [NAME] of [ADDRESS],

Watford’ was recorded as being the ‘Client’ [34].

Exacerbated when queried by the response of Mr [APPELLANT] in his letter dated 22 [APPELLANT] 2017 [43] of: “[NAME] do not report to Mr [NAME], Mrs

[NAME] is the freeholder and that is a typographical error, the

specification was prepared for the Freeholder.”

Exacerbated even further by a letter dated 12 June 2017 [26] sent by Mr

[NAME] to Mr & Mrs [NAME] in which he said:

“I am writing to set out the financial position as we see it at the present

time.

We will need to send out a statement to the two Leaseholders, subject to

your agreement to the enclosed financial status report. There is then set

out proposed expenditure totalling £38,245.44 plus further professional fees for [NAME] of £960.00.

13.6 The inclusion in the schedule of works at paragraph 3.24:

“The partition wall that exists at ground floor level underneath the

staircase which is timber clad with a window, allow to dismantle and

removed [sic] as part of unauthorised works by ground floor

leaseholder. Allow to make good all damage to areas disturbed.” We

pause to observe that this small wall was the subject of paragraphs 33

and 34 of the first decision. At that hearing Mr [NAME] agreed to

reinstate the wall. He says he has done so. The apparent direction to Mr

[NAME] to allow for it to be removed is unclear and in any event issues

6

around the wall are a private matter as between Mrs [NAME] and Mr

[NAME] and do not appear to impact on Mr [NAME] day to day

management of the Property.

13.7 The inclusion in Mr [NAME] schedule of works at paragraph 3.25:

“External timber staircase providing access from first floor to the rear

garden is rotten. Allow to dismantle the timber staircase and to dispose

of all materials.” And then at 3.26 provision of a new metal staircase.

Mr [NAME] argued that this staircase was within the demise of the FFF

and thus Mr [NAME] sole responsibility. (At the hearing this point was

conceded by Mr [NAME] which concession was not objected to by Mr or

Mrs [NAME]).

13.8 These and other matters have caused Mr [NAME] to be suspicious about the extent of urgent works now said to be required and which Mr [NAME]

believes tend to favour/benefit the FFF as opposed to the GFF. An

example cited by Mr [NAME] was proposed extensive roof works to the

FFF but no works to the roof of his rear addition at ground floor level

which he believes are required. Whilst the schedule of works is not clear

as to what works to the roof of the rear addition were contemplated the two quotations obtained by Mr [NAME] both make passing references to

‘Lower Flat Roof’ and ‘Lower Dormer’.

These are just some examples we give to get a sense of the flavour. We do not need to make express findings on each of them. Mr [NAME] may be right or wrong in his conclusions, but it was clear to us that he has genuine concerns and that there is some support for them.

14. These issues (and others) have been the subject of correspondence between Mr [NAME] solicitors and Mr [NAME] solicitors who took a rather unfortunate and uncompromising tone, rather than a mutually collaborative tone.

Matters discussed and guidance given. 15. Mr [NAME] case was not focussed on what positive orders he sought from the tribunal, rather he was critical of Mr [NAME] approach to his role. The issues for discussion can be derived from Mr [NAME] solicitors’ letter dated 25 June 2018 [6] and the draft order [25]. These gave rise to some additional issues as discussed below:

That the manager reports providing details of any and all communications with the freeholder/other leaseholder 16. Discussion showed that there was not any material correspondence on the

current management issues that Mr [NAME] has not seen and this issue was not pursued.

That Mr [NAME] confirms what action has been undertaken to recover monies owed by the other leaseholder

7

17.1 This relates to the levy of £3,995 which Mr [NAME] has paid but which Mr [NAME] has not. There was some discussion about this in paragraphs 12-14 of the second decision. Mr [NAME] told us that collection of this was not pursued because Mrs [NAME] told him that there were historic service charge arrears of about £16,000 due to her from Mr [NAME] arising in connection with matters prior to Mr [NAME] appointment as manager.

17.2 This is not acceptable as a reason for Mr [NAME] not paying. Both lessees must

contribute equally in accordance with the terms of their respective leases. Mr

[NAME] has paid his levy and Mr [NAME] must now do so. The alleged service

charge arrears are contentious, but they are an entirely separate matter as

between Mrs [NAME] and Mr [NAME]. If Mrs [NAME] considers they are due and

payable there are steps which she can pursue in that regard. Mr [NAME] cannot set off his obligation to pay the levy against sums allegedly owed to Mrs [NAME] by Mr [NAME].

Order 18. For avoidance of doubt we make an order that Mr [NAME] shall by 5pm Friday

30 November 2018 pay to Mr [NAME] the levy of £3,995.00.

If Mr [NAME] fails to do so Mr [NAME] shall take appropriate steps to ensure that he recovers that sum from Mr [NAME]. In this regard we draw attention to s27

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and CPR r 70.5 and CPR PD 70.

The tribunal is asked to direct that our client having rebuilt the wall to the storage area referred to in the earlier decisions that this is not a matter for the manager to include within the repair works 19. We have commented on this above, albeit briefly. It was a matter of great

concern to Mrs [NAME] that Mr [NAME] had demolished a small wall without her

consent. Evidently Mrs [NAME] was contemplating forfeiture proceedings with

regards to this alleged breach of covenant.

20. The wall is mentioned in paragraphs 29-34 of the first decision. Mr [NAME] was urged to reinstate the wall and he tells us he has done so. It is thus disappointing that the wall is still a contentious issue and that apparently Mr [NAME] was directed to allow for the demolition of it.

21. At the hearing Mr [NAME] was clear that so far as he is aware the wall is not in

disrepair and thus he has no interest in now carrying out any works to it.

22. For avoidance of doubt we direct that Mr [NAME] is not to procure any works to

the wall to be carried out. If Mrs [NAME] still has issues with Mr [NAME] about

this wall it is for her to pursue them directly and in the appropriate forum.

That the stairway to the upper flat is not an item for the manager to repair at cost to our client 23. Mr [NAME] told us that initially Mr [NAME] (not unreasonably) took the view that this referred the internal stairway leading from the lobby beside the front street door to the front door of the FFF. As it emerged this view was incorrect and Mr [NAME] solicitors were referring to the external stairway leading from the

8

rear of the FFF to the rear garden. Having clarified this Mr [NAME] realistically

accepted that the rear external stairway was within the demise of the FFF.

24. What was not made clear to us was why in these circumstances the external rear stairway featured in Mr [NAME] schedule of works at all.

That the manager produces evidence that the survey/specification was produced by an independent third party without interference by Mr and Mrs [NAME] 25. Initially Mr [NAME] took the view that Mr [NAME] prepared a survey report as a precursor to preparing his schedule of works. He sought a copy of it and was

frustrated when it was not disclosed to him. Mr [NAME] confirmed that no such

report existed and that Mr [NAME] carried out an inspection on site and then

went on directly to prepare his schedule of works.

26. By letter dated 11 July 2017 [18] Mr [NAME] wrote to Mr [NAME] enclosing Mr

[NAME] schedule of works, stated that funding required was £38,245.44 and

requesting him to pay his contribution of £19,122.72 by 31 July 2017. Mr

[NAME] said he received this out of the blue and in the absence of any prior

discussions. Given the amount demanded and that payment was requested

within about two weeks Mr [NAME] had a number of concerns. He felt they

were not properly or sympathetically addressed.

27. In the event for cash flow purposes Mr [NAME] decided to have the works carried out in two phases. On 12 September 2017 Mr [NAME] made a revised demand for £11,964.00 [46 -47]. It appears the works proposed to be carried out are those described in the quotation from a contractor [COMPANY] dated 19 April 2017 [49-52]. Mr [NAME] still had concerns and he did not effect payment.

28. The issue could not be resolved despite correspondence between the respective solicitors and ultimately on 25 June 2018 Mr [NAME] solicitors wrote to the tribunal in what was taken to be an [NAME] pursuant to s24(9) of the 1987

Act.

29. At the hearing before us there was some general discussion as to what Mr

[NAME] was asking the tribunal to direct as regards the major works which have now been outstanding for a lengthy period, and what constraints (if any) the

tribunal should take into account. In essence Mr [NAME] wanted an

independent surveyor to prepare a specification of required works.

The tribunal thus rose for 40 minutes or so to see if the parties could arrive at a solution that was mutually acceptable to them.

The agreement 30. On resumption we were told that the parties had agreed:

30.1 A joint [NAME] would be made to the RICS to appoint a building

surveyor as a third party expert to prepare a specification of works

required to the roof and damp proofing.

9

30.2 Upon receipt of that specification Mr [NAME] will endeavour to procure

two competitive quotations. Mr [NAME] will set out the proposed cost of

the works and the amount he will require to be in funds before he is in a

position to place a contract. In this respect Mr [NAME] will be the employer

and it is entirely reasonable that he is in sufficient funds to more than cover his potential liability to the contractor.

30.3 Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME] will pay their respective shares to Mr [NAME]

promptly.

31. In further discussion on the above process, we suggested that:

31.1 Mr [NAME] might send a draft of his letter of instruction to the nominated surveyor to both Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME] and invite comments on it;

31.2 If possible the surveyor should not involve Mr or Mrs [NAME] in his site

visit. It may be that the surveyor will require access to the FFF and thus

that will involve Mr or Mrs [NAME]. In those circumstances Mr [NAME]

might be invited to be in attendance or have the opportunity to send a

representative.

31.3 Any subsequent correspondence to progress the project should be copied

to both Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME]. Equally if Mr [NAME] or Mr [NAME]

should correspond with Mr [NAME] they should copy in the opposite party.

32. It was suggested that we might make an order regarding the prompt payment

of the respective contributions. We decline to do so because we do not know

what amount may be required. Obviously the amount of the levy must be

greater than the estimated costs because Mr [NAME] must always be in funds. Any surplus he may hold when his appointment comes to an end will be returned to the two lessees.

For avoidance of doubt Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME] must be clear that their

contributions must be made promptly and if they are not made promptly Mr

[NAME] is at liberty to write to the tribunal seeking an order for payment which

might then be enforced in the manner mentioned in paragraph 18 above.

33. What the parties were not able to agree upon was how the costs of the third

party surveyor should be apportioned. Mr [NAME] proposed equally, Mrs [NAME], on behalf of Mr [NAME], proposed that they should be borne wholly by Mr [NAME].

34. We direct that those costs shall be borne by Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME] in equal

shares. Given the history to this matter we find that a number of events have

occurred prompted by Mr [NAME], either directly or via Mrs [NAME], that were

sufficient to raise concerns in Mr [NAME] mind. We do not say that all of those concerns were in fact made out but it was not unreasonable of Mr [NAME] to

have those concerns. Further, we are not satisfied that Mr [NAME] schedule of

works was a sufficiently clear and robust specification of works to put out to

10

tender so that rival tenders might be compared on a like for like basis. A more

professional specification is required in any event.

The windows 35. For avoidance of doubt we remind the parties that the windows and window

frames to each flat are demised and thus they fall within the lessee’s repairing

covenant.

36. We would not therefore expect Mr [NAME] to procure any works to the windows

as part of his remit as manager.

37. Of course if for reasons of economy of scale both Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME] may

mutually agree to collaborate and may ask Mr [NAME] to procure the works for

them. If so, such activities will be outside the scope of the management order.

[NAME]’ Invoice 29 December 2016 £960 38. A copy of this invoice is at [81]. The services rendered are said to include:

To receiving instructions;

To examine documentation;

To inspect property and carry out a measured survey;

To prepare floor plans;

To calculate floor areas and service charge apportionment

Fee £800 + VAT Total £960

39. We could not get a clear understanding as to why this expense had been

incurred. As mentioned above there are lease plans annexed to the leases and

whist not perfect they are adequate and fit for purpose. We do not understand

what purpose a measured survey and new floor plans was to serve. Still less do

we understand the reference to the calculation of floor area and service charge

apportionment. The leases are perfectly clear and unambiguous, that each

lessee is to contribute one-half.

40. Unless both Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME] have agreed that this expense should have been incurred and that they would bear the cost in equal proportions we find

that such an expense was not reasonably incurred and that neither Mr [NAME] nor Mr [NAME] are obliged to contribute to it.

The orders made and the directions given 41. Having regard to the foregoing we considered it just and convenient to make

the orders set out above and to give further direction to [NAME].

Judge John Hewitt Dated 15 November 2018

Statutory Materials Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

24.— Appointment of manager by a tribunal.

11

(1) The appropriate tribunal may, on an [NAME] for an order under this section, by order (whether interlocutory or final) appoint a manager to carry out in relation to any premises to which this Part applies—

(a) such functions in connection with the management of the premises, or

(b) such functions of a receiver, or both, as the tribunal thinks fit.

(2) The appropriate tribunal may only make an order under this section in the following circumstances, namely—

(a) where the tribunal is satisfied—

(i) that any relevant person either is in breach of any obligation owed by him to the tenant under his tenancy and relating to the management of the premises in question or any part of them or (in the case of an obligation dependent on notice) would be in breach of any such obligation but for the fact that it has not been reasonably practicable for the tenant to give him the appropriate notice, and

(ii) …[repealed]

(iii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case;

(ab) where the tribunal is satisfied—

(i) that unreasonable service charges have been made, or are proposed or likely to be made, and

(ii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case;

(aba) where the tribunal is satisfied—

(i) that unreasonable variable administration charges have been made, or are proposed or likely to be made, and

(ac) where the tribunal is satisfied—

(i) that any relevant person has failed to comply with any relevant provision of a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (codes of management practice), and

12

(ii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case; or

(b) where the tribunal is satisfied that other circumstances exist which make it just and convenient for the order to be made.

(2ZA) In this section “relevant person” means a person—

(a) on whom a notice has been served under section 22, or

(b) in the case of whom the requirement to serve a notice under that section has been dispensed with by an order under subsection (3) of that section.

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(ab) a service charge shall be taken to be unreasonable—

(a) if the amount is unreasonable having regard to the items for which it is payable,

(b) if the items for which it is payable are of an unnecessarily high standard, or

(c) if the items for which it is payable are of an insufficient standard with the result that additional service charges are or may be incurred.

In that provision and this subsection “service charge” means a service charge within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, other than one excluded from that section by section 27 of that Act (rent of dwelling registered and not entered as variable).

(2B) In subsection (2)(aba) “variable administration charge” has the meaning given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

(3) The premises in respect of which an order is made under this section may, if the tribunal thinks fit, be either more or less extensive than the premises specified in the [NAME] on which the order is made.

(4) An order under this section may make provision with respect to—

(a) such matters relating to the exercise by the manager of his functions under the order, and

(b) such incidental or ancillary matters, as the tribunal thinks fit; and, on any subsequent [NAME] made for the purpose by the manager, the tribunal may give him directions with respect to any such matters.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), an order under this section may provide—

13

(a) for rights and liabilities arising under contracts to which the manager is not a party to become rights and liabilities of the manager;

(b) for the manager to be entitled to prosecute claims in respect of causes of action (whether contractual or tortious) accruing before or after the date of his appointment; (c) for remuneration to be paid to the manager by any relevant person, or by the tenants of the premises in respect of which the order is made or by all or any of those persons;

(d) for the manager's functions to be exercisable by him (subject to subsection (9)) either during a specified period or without limit of time.

(6) Any such order may be granted subject to such conditions as the tribunal thinks fit, and in particular its operation may be suspended on terms fixed by the tribunal.

(7) In a case where an [NAME] for an order under this section was preceded by the service of a notice under section 22, the tribunal may, if it thinks fit, make such an order notwithstanding—

(a) that any period specified in the notice in pursuance of subsection (2)(d) of that section was not a reasonable period, or

(b) that the notice failed in any other respect to comply with any requirement contained in subsection (2) of that section or in any regulations applying to the notice under section 54(3).

(8) The Land Charges Act 1972 and the Land Registration Act 2002 shall apply in relation to an order made under this section as they apply in relation to an order appointing a receiver or sequestrator of land.

(9) The appropriate tribunal may, on the [NAME] of any [NAME], vary or discharge (whether conditionally or unconditionally) an order made under this section; and if the order has been protected by an entry registered under the Land Charges Act 1972 or the Land Registration Act 2002, the tribunal may by order direct that the entry shall be cancelled.

(9A) The tribunal shall not vary or discharge an order under subsection (9) on the [NAME] of any relevant person unless it is satisfied—

(a) that the variation or discharge of the order will not result in a recurrence of the circumstances which led to the order being made, and

(b) that it is just and convenient in all the circumstances of the case to vary or discharge the order.

(10) An order made under this section shall not be discharged by the appropriate tribunal by reason only that, by virtue of section 21(3), the premises in respect of which the order was made have ceased to be premises to which this Part applies.

14

(11) References in this Part to the management of any premises include references to the repair, maintenance, improvement or insurance of those premises.

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. 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.

2. 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].

3. 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.

4. 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.