Automated Summary
Key Facts
The First-Tier Tribunal Property Chamber has determined that Canary Gateway (Block A) RTM Co Ltd and Canary Gateway (Block B) RTM Co Ltd were entitled to acquire the Right to Manage premises at Canary Gateway (St Anne's Street, London E14) under section 84(5)(a) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The tribunal rejected the Respondent's (Avon Ground Rents Limited) arguments regarding jurisdiction and service of notices inviting participation, finding that the Applicants' application was valid despite procedural errors, and that the Applicants had properly served qualifying tenants. The decision, dated 2 March 2022, follows a remote video hearing on 1 February 2022.
Issues
- The tribunal had to determine if the applicants' submission of incorrect claim notices rendered their application invalid, or if this procedural defect could be cured under Rule 8 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013, which governs the tribunal's discretion to waive procedural irregularities.
- The tribunal had to determine if the applicants properly served notices inviting participation to all qualifying tenants as required by section 78 of the 2002 Act, with the applicants denying the failure and the Respondent raising specific instances of alleged non-compliance.
Holdings
The tribunal determined that the RTM companies for Canary Gateway Blocks A and B were entitled to acquire the right to manage the premises under section 84(5)(a) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, with the right to manage to be acquired within three months of the decision becoming final.
Remedies
The tribunal determined that the Applicants were entitled to acquire the right to manage the premises under section 84(5)(a) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. As a result, the Applicants will acquire the right to manage the premises within three months of the decision becoming final.
Legal Principles
The tribunal applied the principle of 'substance over form' to determine that procedural errors in the RTM application (such as attaching an incorrect claim notice copy) were curable under Rule 8 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013, provided the substantive requirements of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 were satisfied. This distinction between statutory compliance (substance) and procedural adherence (form) was central to the decision.
Precedent Name
- Avon Ground Rents Ltd v Canary Gateway (Block A) RTM Co Ltd and others
- Denton v TH White Ltd
- Lough's Property Management Limited v Robert Court RTM Company Limited
- BPP Holdings v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
- Corscombe Close Block 8 RTM Co Ltd v Roseleb Ltd
- Assethold Limited v 20 Upper Wickham RTM Company Limited
Cited Statute
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
Judge Name
- Mrs E Flint
- Judge Sheftel
Passage Text
- For the reasons set out above, we find in favour of the Applicants on the two issues that we have been asked to determine. Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that the Applicants were on the relevant date entitled to acquire the right to manage the premises pursuant to section 84(5)(a) of the 2002 Act.
- Accordingly, and for the reasons set out above, we consider that the Respondent's argument on jurisdiction must fail.
- As set out above, by admitting the witness statement and on the basis that the evidence is unchallenged, we therefore find in favour of the Applicants on this issue.