A1 Properties (Sunderland) Limited v Tudor Studios RTM Company Limited
[2023] UKUT 27 (LC)
Assethold Limited v 429 New Cross Road RTM Company Limited
16 May 2024
[2024] UKUT 113 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A group of leaseholders tried to take over managing their building. They messed up when withdrawing their initial request, failing to send the notice to the correct address specified by the building owner. Because of this small mistake, the court ruled they couldn't take over the building management, emphasizing that rules about these things must be followed precisely.
Key Facts
- •AssetHold Limited (appellant) is the freeholder of a property.
- •429 New Cross Road RTM Company Limited (respondent) sought to acquire the right to manage the property.
- •Respondent served a claim notice, appellant served a counter-notice specifying Scott Cohen Solicitors as the address for future communications.
- •Respondent withdrew the first claim notice and served a second claim notice, sending the withdrawal notice to the appellant's registered office instead of Scott Cohen Solicitors.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found in favor of the respondent.
- •Appellant appealed the FTT's decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Legal Principles
Acquisition of the right to manage requires correct procedure; errors can invalidate the claim.
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, Part 2, Chapter 1
A claim notice can be withdrawn before the right to manage is acquired by notifying the landlord.
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, section 86(1)
A subsequent claim notice is invalid if an earlier claim notice is still in force.
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, section 81(3)
Section 111(4) of the 2002 Act dictates that if a landlord notifies a different address for service, the RTM company must use that address; it considers whether a counter-notice sufficiently fulfills this requirement.
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, section 111(4)
In cases involving statutory procedural requirements for acquiring property rights, strict compliance is required; substantial compliance is insufficient.
Natt v Osman [2014] EWCA Civ 1520
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT's decision.
The withdrawal notice was not served at the correct address as specified in the counter-notice, rendering it ineffective. The second claim notice was therefore premature and invalid.
Similar Cases
A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd
[2024] UKSC 27
Avon Freeholds Limited v Cresta Court E RTM Company Ltd
[2024] UKUT 335 (LC)
Guv Harborough & Saltley House RTM Co Ltd v Adriatic Land 3 Limited & Ors
[2024] UKUT 109 (LC)
Assethold Limited v 159-167 Prince of Wales Road RTM Company Limited
[2023] UKUT 220 (LC)