UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)

	
UT Neutral citation number: [2015] UKUT 0278 (LC)
   UTLC Case Number: LRX/109/2014

TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007

LANDLORD AND TENANT – Right to Manage – RTM Company claiming right in respect of more than one self-contained building – not permitted – appeal allowed

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION
OF THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (PROPERTY CHAMBER)

BETWEEN:

SINCLAIR GARDENS INVESTMENTS (KENSINGTON) LIMITED
Appellant

and

THE MALTINGS (STANSTEAD ABBOTTS) MANAGEMENT CO LIMITED
Respondent

Re: 88-99 & 100-205 Rivermeads, 
Stanstead Abbotts, 
Ware, 
Hertfordshire SG12 8EL

Decision on Written Representations

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2015

The following cases were referred to in this decision:
90 Broomfield Road RTM Company Limited v Triplerose Ltd [2013] UKUT 0606 (LC).
Triplerose Limited v 90 Broomfield Road RTM Company Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 282)

DECISION
1.	On 24 July 2014 the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (“the FTT”) determined that the respondent, The Maltings (Stanstead Abbotts) Management Limited (the Company) was entitled to acquire the right to manage under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 in respect of two separate blocks of flats at 88-99 & 100-205 Rivermeads, Stanstead Abbotts, Ware, Hertfordshire.
2.	In its application to the Tribunal for permission to appeal the appellant acknowledged that the FTT had been bound by the Tribunal’s decision in 90 Broomfield Road RTM Company Limited v Triplerose Ltd [2013] UKUT 0606 (LC), and explained that for that reason it had not presented detailed argument on the question whether a single RTM Company could acquire the right to manage in respect of more than one set of premises within the definition in s. 72 of the 2002 Act.  In 90 Broomfield Road the Tribunal had decided that it could, but the appellant reserved its position pending the outcome of the landlord’s appeal to the Court of Appeal in that case.
3.	The Tribunal informed the parties on 22 December 2014 that it had decided to defer consideration of the application for permission to appeal until after the appeal in 90 Broomfield Road had been determined by the Court of Appeal. 
4.	On 27 March 2015 the Tribunal’s decision in 90 Broomfield Road was reversed by the Court of Appeal (Triplerose Limited v 90 Broomfield Road RTM Company Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 282).  The Court of Appeal determined that an RTM Company may not acquire the right to manage more than one self-contained building.
5.	On 31 April 2015 the Tribunal granted permission to appeal and asked the Company whether it proposed to respond to the appeal.  If it did, it was required to file a respondent’s notice by not later than 30 April 2015.  The parties were informed that if no respondent’s notice was received the appeal would be determined by the Tribunal on the basis of the material already provided. 
6.	No respondent’s notice, nor any other communication from the Company, has been received by the Tribunal.   
7.	In light of the decision of the Court of Appeal, it is now clear that the decision of the FTT in this case was arrived at in error.  A single RTM Company may not acquire the right to manage more than one self-contained building.   I therefore allow the appeal and set aside the FTT’s decision.								
						Martin Rodger QC										Deputy President 		          22 May 2015