Key Facts
- •GUV Harborough & Saltley House RTM Co Ltd (appellant) sought the right to manage three blocks (Harborough, Saltley, and Brecon Houses) in Grand Union Village.
- •The blocks share an underground car park.
- •Freehold ownership of the blocks is split between different entities.
- •The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) denied the application, finding the premises did not constitute a single self-contained building.
- •The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Legal Principles
For Chapter 1 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (2002 Act) to apply, the premises must consist of a self-contained building or part of a building (s.72(1)(a)). A building is self-contained if it is structurally detached (s.72(2)).
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
An RTM company may not manage more than one building (Triplerose).
Triplerose Ltd v 90 Broomfield Road RTM Co Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 282
The definition of 'premises' in section 73(4) refers to premises as defined in section 72(1), namely a self-contained building or part of a building.
Assethold v Eveline Road RTM Co Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 187; Triplerose Ltd v 90 Broomfield Road RTM Co Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 282
Where different persons own the freehold of different parts of premises falling within section 72(1), Chapter 1 does not apply if any of those parts is a self-contained part of the building (Schedule 6, paragraph 2).
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, Schedule 6, paragraph 2
In determining whether premises are structurally detached, it is necessary to first identify the premises to which the claim relates. A continuous concrete structure, integral to both the building and other structures like a car park, prevents a building from being considered structurally detached.
Albion Residential Ltd v Albion Riverside Residents RTM Co Ltd [2014] UKUT 6 (LC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed, but the application for a determination that the appellant is entitled to acquire the right to manage is dismissed.
The FTT failed to properly consider the evidence and apply the relevant legal principles regarding the definition of a 'self-contained building' and the implications of the split freehold and the existence of another RTM company. Insufficient evidence existed to determine whether the premises constituted a single self-contained building or parts of a building.