Automated Summary
Key Facts
The First-Tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) ruled on 23rd May 2019 that Wheelwright House (46-130) RTM Co Ltd was entitled to acquire the right to manage the premises at 46-130 Wheelwright House, Palgrave Road, Bedford MK42 9EX. The Tribunal determined that the premises (comprising Blocks D, E, and F) are part of one building with a vertical division, can be redeveloped independently, and have services that can be provided independently or with minimal disruption. The decision was based on the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, specifically Section 72.
Issues
- The Tribunal determined that the Premises (Blocks D, E, and F) are part of one building with a vertical division, and the structure is such that they could be redeveloped independently of the rest of the building, satisfying section 72(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
- The Tribunal found that the water supply to the Premises could be separated from the rest of the building without significant interruption, satisfying section 72(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
- The Tribunal determined that the failure to serve a Claim Notice on Notting Hill Genesis, a Housing Association, did not invalidate the Applicant's claim for the right to manage because the Association was not a landlord with management functions under the Act, and the failure to serve the notice did not disadvantage the Respondent.
Holdings
The Tribunal determined that the Applicant was entitled to acquire the right to manage the Premises under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Specifically, the Tribunal found that: (1) the failure to serve a Claim Notice on Notting Hill Genesis did not invalidate the Applicant's claim; (2) the Premises are part of one building with a vertical division and could be redeveloped independently; (3) the services for the Premises are provided independently or could be provided without significant interruption; and (4) the Premises comply with the definition of 'premises' for the right to manage.
Remedies
The Tribunal granted the Applicant the right to manage the premises under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, determining that the Premises comply with the definition of 'premises' over which a right to manage could be acquired.
Legal Principles
- The tribunal applied specific provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, particularly section 72(3) and (4), to determine that the premises were part of one building with a vertical division and that services could be provided independently or could be so provided without significant interruption.
- The tribunal applied the purposive approach to interpret the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, determining that the intention of the legislature regarding non-compliance with statutory procedures should be ascertained in the light of the statutory scheme as a whole.
- The tribunal considered whether the Respondent was estopped from changing its position regarding the division between Blocks C and D after previously accepting that Block A was a self-contained part of the building, but ultimately determined no estoppel arose.
- The tribunal recognized that the burden of proof was on the Applicant to demonstrate that the services could be provided independently, as required by section 72(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
Precedent Name
- Natt v Osman
- No 1 Deansgate (Residential) Ltd Company v No 1 Deansgate RTM Co Ltd
- Triplerose v 90 Broomfield RTM Company Limited
- CQN RTM Company Ltd v Broad Quay North Block Freehold Limited
- Elim Court RTM Company Ltd v Avon Freeholds Ltd
- St Stephens Mansions RTM Company Ltd v Fairhold NW Limited
- Quaysude (Colchester) No 3 RTM Company Limited and Theouval Limited and St Stephens Mansions RTM Company Ltd v Fairhold NW Limited
- Oakwood v Daejan
Cited Statute
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
Judge Name
- Mr J Francis
- Mrs M Hardman
- Judge J R Morris
Passage Text
- The Tribunal determines that pursuant to section 72(3) Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, the Premises are part of one building and there is a vertical division between them and the rest of the building, and the structure of the building is such that the Premises could be redeveloped independently of the rest of the building.
- The Tribunal decides that the failure to serve on Notting Hill Genesis a Claim Notice to which it could serve a counter notice does not invalidate the Applicant's claim for the right to manage.
- The Tribunal determines that the services in relation to the part of the building, which are the Premises, are provided independently or could be so provided without involving the carrying out of works likely to result in a significant interruption in the provision of any relevant services for occupants of the rest of the building pursuant to section 72(4) (a) and (b) Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.