The right to manage provisions in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 enable leaseholders to assume responsibility for the day-to-day management of the blocks of flats in which they live, without proving that their landlord is at fault. Premises fall within the ambit of the scheme if they consist of “a self-contained building or part of a building”, with or without appurtenant property.
A building is “self-contained” if it is “structurally detached” from adjoining buildings. An area will qualify as a self-contained part of a building if: (i) it is vertically divided from the rest of the building; (ii) it can be redeveloped independently; and (iii) it is independently serviced (or could be without significantly disrupting the services to the rest of the building).
Albion Residential Ltd v Albion Riverside Residents RTM Company Ltd [2014] UKUT 0006 (LC) concerned a building that formed part of structurally complex mixed commercial and residential development by Battersea Bridge on the south bank of the Thames. The building sat on top of a large parking area in the basement, which extended well beyond the footprint of the building and incorporated plant and service rooms providing communal and inseparable services to adjoining parts of the development.
The engineering consultancy responsible for the technical aspects of the construction gave evidence that the basement and buildings above were constructed as a single structural entity and that the basement area was structurally and functionally integral to the edifaces above it. The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal accepted that the building was not structurally detached from the basement, but decided that the tenants were entitled to acquire the right to manage their particular building because the car parking area constituted “appurtenant property”.
The Upper Tribunal disagreed. It ruled that structural detachment is a question of fact. It dismissed the tenants’ argument that the building began at ground floor level and did not include the basement area beneath. The struts and concrete slab that supported the building were firmly attached to the structure below and around it. It was not fanciful to suppose that major building elements of the development would require extensive work during the 999-year terms of the tenants’ leases and Parliament had confined the right to manage to buildings that were structurally detached to forestall disputes about shared structural elements or redevelopment.
The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal had accepted that the building was structurally attached to the car park, but had then classified the car parking area as “appurtenant property”. This was not the right approach. The identification of appurtenant property is an exercise that should not take place if the building or part of the building in question is not “self-contained”. The tenants had not tried to argue that their claim related to a “self-contained part of a building” – presumably because the communal services were inseparable – and in the case of a building, structural attachment between the building and another property will put paid to the tenants’ claim (even if the property to which the building is attached is appurtenant to it).
Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
