If a proposed manager has not fully familiarised themselves with the building they wish to manage and cannot show that they will satisfactorily deal with the ongoing issues, they will not be appointed.
In Waldo House, Trenmar Gardens, London, NW10 6BD LON/00AM/LSC/2019/0322 LON/00AM/AOM/2019/0022 the First-Tier (Property) Tribunal (the tribunal) considered the payability of service charge and also heard a lessee’s application that a manager (the proposed manager) be appointed under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). After hearing from the parties and the proposed manager, the tribunal declined to make the order sought. It made it expressly clear that had the proposed manager been more suitable, a management order would have been made. Interestingly, it also took it upon itself to give directions as to the tasks that the current manager should carry out over the forthcoming months with permission to the applicant to make a fresh application for an alternative manager if (after six months) she is dissatisfied with the results of the directions.
This case provides an insight into what the tribunal expects of someone who wishes to be appointed as a manager under the 1987 Act. Any manager who wishes to be appointed is expected to have made full enquiries of the building, including the lease and to at least have met the client. In this case it was unacceptable for the proposed manager not to have visited the property, not to have read the lease and not to have met the applicant prior to the hearing.
The proposed manager had not complied with directions and had failed to produce a full management plan and draft management order as required. She had not previously been appointed manager by other tribunals which was seen as a disadvantage. She was not local to the property to be managed and the tribunal was not satisfied that this fact would not interfere with regular maintenance and compliance with legislation being undertaken without additional travelling costs.
The tribunal was not satisfied that the proposed manager had the relevant experience, especially of managing a property where the lessees do not co-operate with each other. For example, she had no strategy for dealing with payments for services whilst the current manager compiled books of accounts and handed over any reserves. The proposed manager suggested that a year would be a sufficient period of appointment, but the tribunal was not satisfied that this would allow her long enough to receive service charge funds and sort out the maintenance issues. The tribunal thought it unrealistic to believe that so much could be achieved in such a relatively short time.
Elizabeth Haggerty is a barrister at Lamb Chambers
