Right to manage – Claim notice – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – Appellant RTM company giving notice to respondent landlord of claim to acquire right to manage property – Whether claim notice invalid – Whether failing to specify date for acquisition of right to manage “at least three months after” date specified for giving of landlord’s counternotice – Appeal allowed
The appellant was an RTM company formed to acquire the right to manage a property on behalf of the lessees pursuant to Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. In late August 2013, the appellant gave notice of its claim to the respondent landlord under section 79(6) of the 2002 Act. In accordance with section 80(6), the notice indicated that the respondent was to serve any counternotice by 30 September 2013. The notice further specified that the appellant intended to acquire the right to manage on 31 December 2013.
The first-tier tribunal (FTT) held that the claim notice was invalid since that last date did not comply with the requirement under section 80(7) to specify a date for the acquisition of the right to manage that was “at least three months after that specified under subsection (6)”. It held that 1 January 2014 was the earliest date that could have been specified under section 80(7). In that regard, it took the view that the inclusion of the word “after” in section 80(7) meant that the date had to be after 31 December 2013, being three calendar months from the date specified under section 80(6), ignoring that day in calculating the period.
Held: The claim/appeal was allowed/dismissed.
There was a long-established rule of common usage and great simplicity that the corresponding date in the following month or months was to be used as the date of calculation. The first day that was three months “after” 30 September was 31 December. The FTT had therefore erred in not treating the start time as midnight on 30-31 December. Specifying the date as 31 December 2013, which was after midnight on 30 December, therefore satisfied the requirements of section 80(7) so that the claim notice complied with section 80 of the 2002 Act: Dodds v Walker [1981] 2 All ER 609 applied. It followed that the claim notice was valid and an effectual to exercise of the right to manage.
The appeal was determined on the written representations of the appellant; the respondent made no representations.
Sally Dobson, barrister
