• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • Find everything …
    • About Peverel group
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Cladding scandal
    • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • MHCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • FirstPort
    • Fleecehold
    • Forfeiture
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Housing associations
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance
    • IRPM
    • JB Leitch
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Liam Spender
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • Park Homes
    • Parliament
    • Persimmon
    • Peverel
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Press
    • Property tribunal
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • Richard Davidoff
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Rooftop development
    • RTM
    • Sean Powell
    • SFO
    • Shared ownership
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Subletting
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • Warwick Estates
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
  • [Custom]
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • Find everything …
      • About Peverel group
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Cladding scandal
      • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • MHCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • FirstPort
      • Fleecehold
      • Forfeiture
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Housing associations
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance
      • IRPM
      • JB Leitch
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Liam Spender
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • Park Homes
      • Parliament
      • Persimmon
      • Peverel
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Press
      • Property tribunal
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • Richard Davidoff
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Rooftop development
      • RTM
      • Sean Powell
      • SFO
      • Shared ownership
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Subletting
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • Warwick Estates
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / Latest News / Time for the tribunal to dismiss trivial objections to right to manage after Elim Case

Time for the tribunal to dismiss trivial objections to right to manage after Elim Case

February 24, 2017 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

Elim Court, in Plymouth is a retirement site where the right to manage has taken for six years. Some of the original applicants have since died. The Court of Appeal granted right to manage this week, dismissing trivial objections to a no-fault right created by Parliament

By Professor James Driscoll

At last, some common sense in right to manage claims?

Professor James Driscoll

Yesterday the Court of Appeal handed down a significant decision in a case called Elim Court RTM Company Ltd v Avon Freeholds ([2016] EWCA Civ 89).

It concerns a group of leaseholders living in a block of flats in Plymouth who want to acquire the Right to Manage.

Their claim (apparently their third attempt) started in 2012 so it has taken nearly five years to establish something that most people would regard as a simple question: is this group of leaseholders entitled to take over management under the RTM?

If a landlord objects the leaseholders must apply to the First-tier Tribunal for a determination if they want to carry on. There may be cases where there is a substantive objection: does the building actually qualify? (For example, where there is non-residential use which exceeds 25% of the internal floor space), or has sufficient number of leaseholders joined the claim?

But it has become apparent that some landlords and their advisors will pore over the documents that make up the claim, such as the pre-claim participation notices, or the claim notice itself, (to take two examples) to see if there is some error, however trivial, to which they can object.

Until the Elim Court case tribunals and the courts usually took the position that defects in the procedures invalidate the claim. So, the leaseholders will have to start all over again to take over the management of their block.

What has puzzled many people is that any procedural defects, such as they are, may not directly affect the landlord.

After all, the RTM has no effect on the landlord’s property rights, such as ground rents, new lease claims and so on.

What does it matter to the landlord if there is some defect in the participation notice?

If one of the leaseholders did not receive such a notice, how is the landlord adversely affected?

If there is a small error in the claim notice can this be excused or is the landlord entitled to a ruling that the whole claim is invalidated?

In the Elim Court case the leaseholders were met with a counter-notice from the landlord making certain objections to the elements of the procedure in that claim.

They applied to First-tier Tribunal seeking a determination that they had acquired the RTM.

They were to be disappointed as the tribunal concluded that as certain mistakes had occurred the claim was invalid.

But the leaseholders carried on only to find that their appeal to the Upper Tribunal also failed.

Undaunted, they managed to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which has ruled that trivial defects do not of themselves invalidate an RTM claim.

Many will be delighted for them that their quest to take over management of the building containing there homes has at last succeeded.

But looking longer-term isn’t it time for Government to review the procedures that have so many traps for the unwary?

The simpler they are made the less likely it is that claims fail and time-consuming and lengthy litigation where some groups of leaseholders may struggle against a well-resourced landlord who has the benefit of top legal advice.

Why not give the tribunals the power to excuse mistakes where it is just to do so?

Professor James Driscoll is a solicitor and a writer
http://www.jamesdriscoll.co.uk/

Related posts:

Default ThumbnailTory MP backs pensioners in leasehold right to manage dispute Retirement site loses right to manage appeal after three years. Now what’s the cost? Israel Moskovitz loses epic Elim Court right to manage battle in landmark Court of Appeal decision Right to manage woes at Elim and Regent Courts retirement sites Should the RTMF be taking the Elim Court battle for right to manage to the Court of Appeal?

Category: Latest News, News, RTMTag: Elim Court, Israel Moskovitz, James Driscoll, Joseph Gurvits

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (37) ARMA (87) Bellway (30) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (31) CMA (45) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (41) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (42) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (54) Harry Scoffin (150) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (35) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (30) Justin Bates (40) Justin Madders MP (67) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Long Harbour (48) Martin Boyd (80) McCarthy and Stone (39) National Leasehold Campaign (38) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Redrow (30) Retirement (37) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (55) Sir Peter Bottomley (201) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (43) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « STOP Selling new build leasehold houses demands Leader of the House of Commons
Next Post: Israel Moskovitz loses epic Elim Court right to manage battle in landmark Court of Appeal decision »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Michael Epstein

    February 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm

    That another company is appointed to maintain a development should be of no concern to a freeholder. After all, whoever manages the development the covenants of the lease have to be complied with.
    My suggestion which would really simplify matters would be a process in which A RTM company serves notice on the freeholder.
    The freeholder can either accept or if they have objections, they must put those objections in writing to the RTM company..
    The RTM company has the opportunity to re-present their RTM application having addressed any issues raised by the freeholder..
    If there is still a dispute, then either the freeholder or the RTM company can apply to the Upper Tribunal for a ruling on the differences.
    If the Upper Tribunal finds in favour of the RTM Company, the RTM goes ahead.
    If the Upper Tribunal has issues with certain aspects of the RTM documentation,and the RTM company can comply with any findings of the Upper Tribunal, the RTM goes ahead.
    If the tribunal believes any action by the freeholder to be either vexatious or merely to be a delaying tactic, the freeholder should be held liable for the costs of the RTM company.
    For example challenging a right to manage because a couple of words are left out of a document are the RTM company doesn’t have the words Right to Manage’ in the name should be seen as vexatious.

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Common Ground
Adam Church
Blocnet property management2

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data

Categories

  • News
  • Cladding scandal
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press
  • APPG

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
5th Floor
Kings Place
London N1 9AG

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2023 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
LKP website is hosted at www.34sp.com
Website by Callia Web