United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)

UT Neutral citation number: [2015] UKUT 277 (LC)

UTLC Case Number: LRX/65/2012

TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007

LANDLORD AND TENANT – Right to Manage – RTM Company claiming right in respect of more than one self-contained building – not permitted – appeal allowed

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION

OF A LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

SINCLAIR GARDENS INVESTMENTS (KENSINGTON) LIMITED

Appellant

and

DARLASTON COURT RTM LIMITED

Respondent

Re: Darlaston Court,

123 Main Road,

Meriden,

Coventry

CV7 7NJ

Decision on Written Representations

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2015

The following cases were referred to in this decision:

90 Broomfield Road RTM Company Limited v Triplerose Ltd [2013] UKUT 606 (LC).

Triplerose Limited v 90 Broomfield Road RTM Company Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 282)

DECISION

1.            On 18 January 2012 a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal of the London Rent Assessment Committee determined that the respondent, Darlaston Court RTM Limited was entitled to acquire the right to manage under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 in respect of three separate blocks of flats at Darlaston Court, 123 Main Road, Meriden, Coventry. 

2.            Permission to appeal was granted by the Tribunal to Sinclair Gardens (Kensington) Ltd, the landlord of Darlaston Court, on 11 July 2012, but the appeal was subsequently stayed pending the determination by the Tribunal in 90 Broomfield Road RTM Company Limited v Triplerose Ltd [2013] UKUT 606 (LC).  In that case the Tribunal decided that a single RTM Company could acquire the right to manage in respect of more than one set of premises within the definition in s. 72 of the 2002 Act. 

3.            The Tribunal’s decision in 90 Broomfield Road was itself the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal where the Tribunal’s decision was reversed (Triplerose Limited v 90 Broomfield Road RTM Company Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 282).  In its judgment delivered on 27 March 2015 the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal determined that an RTM Company may not acquire the right to manage more than one self-contained building.

4.            On 13 April 2015 the Tribunal wrote to the parties to this appeal asking whether they were now capable of reaching agreement or whether a decision of the Tribunal was required.  The appellant’s solicitors responded on 29 April 2015 seeking a determination of the appeal on the basis of the written material already provided.  No response to the Tribunal’s letter has been received from Brethertons LLP, the solicitors on the record, for the respondent.  On inquiry the Tribunal has been informed that they are without current instructions.

5.            In light of the decision of the Court of Appeal it is clear that the decision of the LVT in this case was arrived at in error.  A single RTM Company may not acquire the right to manage more than one self-contained building.  Accordingly I allow the appeal and set aside the LVT’s decision.

6.            The appellant has requested confirmation that it is entitled to its costs of the appeal pursuant to s. 88(1) Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 without the need for a further direction to that effect from the Tribunal.  The appropriate forum for that issue to be determined is in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) if the respondent or its members do not agree that the effect of s. 88 is as the appellant contends.

Martin Rodger QC

Deputy President

22 May 2015