Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – Appointment of manager – Leasehold valuation tribunal making interim order appointing manager for initial period of 12 months – Leaseholders failing to apply to fix further hearing before expiry of that period – LVT purporting to extend interim order after date of expiry – Whether LVT having jurisdiction to extend order – Whether entitled to make new order and dispense with requirement to serve further preliminary notice on appellant freeholder under section 22 – Appeal allowed The respondent was the leaseholder of one of the flats in a block of which the appellant was the freeholder. The leaseholders were concerned about the failure of the appellant, through its managing agent, properly to maintain the block and its common parts. They served a preliminary notice on the appellant, under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, indicating that they intended to apply to the leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) for the appointment of a manager. They subsequently made that application under section 24. The LVT found that the appellant was in breach of various covenants in the leases and that it was just and convenient to appoint a manager. However, it was concerned about the plans of the leaseholders’ proposed manager. It accordingly decided to make an interim management order for an initial period of 12 months from June 2009. The interim order required the appointed manager to submit a progress report by a date one month before the expiry of the 12-month period and to appear at a hearing on a date to be confirmed. The leaseholders did not apply to fix a hearing date within the 12-month period since they wrongly assumed that the LVT would itself fix the date. The appellant’s managing agent then wrote to the leaseholders informing them that the appellant had instructed it to take over the management of the block since the management order had lapsed. The respondent thereupon contacted the LVT to fix a hearing. At that hearing, the appellant contended that the LVT: (i) had no jurisdiction to vary the order after it had lapsed; and (ii) was not entitled, in the circumstances of the case, to dispense with the requirement for the leaseholders to serve a fresh preliminary notice under section 22 before a new section 24 order could be made. The LVT accepted the latter argument but rejected the former. It decided to extend the interim appointment pursuant to its power of variation or discharge under section 24(9). The appellant appealed. Decision: The appeal was allowed. (1) Although an LVT had power, under section 22(3) of the 1987 Act, to dispense with the requirement to serve a section 22 notice on a person, that power could be exercised only where the LVT was satisfied that it would not be reasonably practicable to serve such a notice on the person in question. There was no evidence that it would not have been reasonably practicable to serve a notice on the appellants. It followed that the LVT could not properly have dispensed with service of a preliminary notice in the circumstances of the case. (2) The LVT had lacked jurisdiction to vary the June 2009 interim management order. The original order was for a term of 12 months. The appointment of the manager had lapsed on the expiry of that period and, thereafter, the freehold owner was again responsible for the maintenance of the block pursuant to the provisions of the lease. Once the interim order had lapsed and the functions of the management of the block had reverted to the freehold owner, through their appointed managing agent, there was no jurisdiction to extend the original order, even if there were very good reasons for doing so. Any such order would not be an extension of the original order but would instead be a new order, requiring service of a preliminary notice under section 22, unless dispensed with under section 22(3). It followed that, on the expiry of the interim order, the management of the block had reverted back to the appellant through its appointed managing agent. Joe Gurvits, of Y&Y Management Ltd (the appellant’s managing agent), appeared for the appellant; the respondent appeared in person. Sally Dobson, barrister
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – Appointment of manager – Leasehold valuation tribunal making interim order appointing manager for initial period of 12 months – Leaseholders failing to apply to fix further hearing before expiry of that period – LVT purporting to extend interim order after date of expiry – Whether LVT having jurisdiction to extend order – Whether entitled to make new order and dispense with requirement to serve further preliminary notice on appellant freeholder under section 22 – Appeal allowed
The respondent was the leaseholder of one of the flats in a block of which the appellant was the freeholder. The leaseholders were concerned about the failure of the appellant, through its managing agent, properly to maintain the block and its common parts. They served a preliminary notice on the appellant, under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, indicating that they intended to apply to the leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) for the appointment of a manager. They subsequently made that application under section 24. The LVT found that the appellant was in breach of various covenants in the leases and that it was just and convenient to appoint a manager. However, it was concerned about the plans of the leaseholders’ proposed manager. It accordingly decided to make an interim management order for an initial period of 12 months from June 2009. The interim order required the appointed manager to submit a progress report by a date one month before the expiry of the 12-month period and to appear at a hearing on a date to be confirmed.
The leaseholders did not apply to fix a hearing date within the 12-month period since they wrongly assumed that the LVT would itself fix the date. The appellant’s managing agent then wrote to the leaseholders informing them that the appellant had instructed it to take over the management of the block since the management order had lapsed. The respondent thereupon contacted the LVT to fix a hearing.
At that hearing, the appellant contended that the LVT: (i) had no jurisdiction to vary the order after it had lapsed; and (ii) was not entitled, in the circumstances of the case, to dispense with the requirement for the leaseholders to serve a fresh preliminary notice under section 22 before a new section 24 order could be made. The LVT accepted the latter argument but rejected the former. It decided to extend the interim appointment pursuant to its power of variation or discharge under section 24(9). The appellant appealed.
Decision: The appeal was allowed.
(1) Although an LVT had power, under section 22(3) of the 1987 Act, to dispense with the requirement to serve a section 22 notice on a person, that power could be exercised only where the LVT was satisfied that it would not be reasonably practicable to serve such a notice on the person in question. There was no evidence that it would not have been reasonably practicable to serve a notice on the appellants. It followed that the LVT could not properly have dispensed with service of a preliminary notice in the circumstances of the case.
(2) The LVT had lacked jurisdiction to vary the June 2009 interim management order. The original order was for a term of 12 months. The appointment of the manager had lapsed on the expiry of that period and, thereafter, the freehold owner was again responsible for the maintenance of the block pursuant to the provisions of the lease. Once the interim order had lapsed and the functions of the management of the block had reverted to the freehold owner, through their appointed managing agent, there was no jurisdiction to extend the original order, even if there were very good reasons for doing so. Any such order would not be an extension of the original order but would instead be a new order, requiring service of a preliminary notice under section 22, unless dispensed with under section 22(3). It followed that, on the expiry of the interim order, the management of the block had reverted back to the appellant through its appointed managing agent.
Joe Gurvits, of Y&Y Management Ltd (the appellant’s managing agent), appeared for the appellant; the respondent appeared in person.
Sally Dobson, barrister