Right to manage – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – Claim notice – Respondent RTM company giving incorrect address for registered office in claim notice served on appellant landlord – Section 80(5) and 81(1) of 2002 Act – Whether error invalidating claim notice such that no entitlement to acquire right to manage on relevant date – Whether an “inaccuracy” in particulars saved by section 81(1) – Appeal allowed
The respondent RTM company had been formed by tenants of a property for the purpose of a claim to acquire a right to manage under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Its claim notice served on the appellant landlord mistakenly gave the incorrect address for its registered office. The appellant, by its counternotice, asserted that the respondent was not on the relevant date entitled to acquire the right to manage, by reason of the inaccuracy as to the respondent’s address. It contended that that mistake invalidated the claim form, which did not fulfil the requirement, in section 80(5) of the 2002 Act, to state the name and registered office of the RTM company.
The respondent applied to the leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT), under section 84(3), for a determination of its entitlement to acquire the right to manage. The LVT found that the claim notice was valid, notwithstanding the error in the address, since it was saved by the provision in section 81(1) that a claim notice would not be invalidated by any inaccuracy in any of the particulars required by section 80. It further found that the inaccuracy was immaterial since it had not prejudiced the appellant.
The appellant appealed. It contended that: (i) on the authority of Moskovitz v 75 Worple Road RTM Co Ltd [2010] UKUT 393 (LC); [2011] 13 EG 108, “particulars” in section 81(1) related only to the matters in section 80(4) and (8) that were expressly described as particulars, with the result that it could not save an inaccuracy in the address required to be stated by section 80(5); and (ii) the LVT had further erred in applying a test of prejudice for which the statute did not provide.
Decision: The appeal was allowed.
Section 81(1) of the 2002 Act could apply to any of the details, or particulars, required by any of the subsections 80(2) to (8) of the Act. That view was supported by regulation 4(c) of the Right to Manage (Prescribed Particulars and Forms)(England) Regulations 2010, which provided for a claim notice to include a statement that the notice was not invalidated by any inaccuracy in any of the particulars required by section 80(2) to (7). Section 81(1) could therefore save a claim notice from being invalid if the particulars required by subsections 80(2) to 80(8) contained an inaccuracy.
However, providing the incorrect name or registered office of the RTM company was not an “inaccuracy” that section 81(1) could save. Section 80 sets out mandatory requirements as to what had to be included in the claim form. A failure to provide those details, namely the information required in section 80(2) to 80(8), resulted in the claim notice being invalid. Although a spelling or typing error in the name or registered office of the RTM company would be an “inaccuracy” in the mandatory details that could be saved by section 81(1), the giving of the incorrect name or address for the RTM company was not an “inaccuracy” but amounted to a failure to provide the mandatory information required by section 80: Cadogan v Morris [1999] 1 EGLR 59; [1999] 04 EG 155 and Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] 1 EGLR 57; [1997] 24 EG 122; [1997] 25 EG 138 applied; Moskovitz considered. Accordingly, the failure of the respondent’s claim notice to include the correct registered office of the RTM company invalidated the claim notice and the respondent was not on the relevant date entitled to acquire the right to manage the premises.
The appeal was determined on the written representations of the parties.
Sally Dobson, barrister
