September saw 2 interesting decisions made by the Upper Chamber (Lands Tribunal) concerning Right to Manage (RTM) applications.
In the first case re 15 Yonge Park a claim notice under section 80 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was served by the RTM company set up for the purpose of exercising the right to manage. Sadly on the Notice the wrong address was given for the Company in that it did not give the Registered Office address of the RTM Company but some other address. At first instance the LVT appears to have accepted that there was an error but that this was not fatal. Unfortunately the Upper Tribunal disagreed.
On appeal it was determined that the requirements set out in Section 80 of the 2002 Act are mandatory. The registered office should have been set out. If there had been some sort of minor error in this address such as a typo this could have been corrected under Section 81 of the 2002 Act but as complete failure to provide the registered office address (although some other address was provided) meant that the Notice as served was defective and invalid. Back to the drawing board for this RTM and almost inevitably a sizeable bill of costs.
The second case was re 6-10 Montrose Gardens. Reading between the lines of this decision it would appear that this was a hard fought RTM with this appeal not relating to the first notice served but the third! One can only guess why earlier notices had been withdrawn or deemed withdrawn.
On this occasion Notice was served which was disputed by the Landlord. The Landlord objected on the basis that an Invitation to Participate had not been given to those Qualifying Tenants who were not members of the RTM Company. Subsequently a couple of days before the 2 month time limit for applying to the LVT expired an application was faxed to the LVT but without any of the supporting documentation which was not received until after the 2 month period had expired.
The questions for the appeal were whether the application had been made properly and if so was the Landlord’s ground for refusal correct.
To deal with the second point it appears to have been agreed that no invitation to participate was served prior to the service of this notice but an invitation had been served prior to an earlier invalid notice. The terms in effect of this notice were the same as those following the Invitation to Participate. Also those persons who were originally served with the Invitation Notice had remained the same. The Tribunal found that there was no need to serve a further Invitation Notice simply because other RTM Notices had been withdrawn or deemed withdrawn. Care should be taken particuarly to make sure that those who should be served the invitation Notice have not changed and good practice must say that it would be better (and safer!) to reserve the Invitation Notice to prevent any argument on this point.
With regards to the application to the LVT the Upper Tribunal was not so generous. Whilst the Upper Tribunal accepted that the LVT may have a discretion they must have received sufficient documents to allow them to deal with the claim and here they had only received an application form. As a result the Upper Tribunal determined that the right of discretion had not even arisen. As a result the application was said to be out of time and there was therefore a deemed withdrawal. It appears therefore they are now on to RTM Notice number 4!
In practice these cases provide a clear lesson that you must make sure you comply with the procedure as set out in the Act fully and you are unlikely to be able to correct mistakes. Further evidence of the need to take care in respect of all Notices but particularly leasehold reform matters as the decisions are clear that strict adherence to the statutory process is required.
Consider yourselves warned!