Right to Manage: Decisions In Cases A, C, F and R
Summary: A building was not structurally detached as it was joined to another building at subterranean level by a car park. The submission that building means “a built structure above ground” was rejected. The tribunal also rejected the submission that that it is incumbent on the recipient of a claim notice given under section 79(6) of the 2002 Act to raise in its counter-notice every challenge to the claim which it wants the LVT to consider (Fairhold (Yorkshire) Limited v Trinity Wharf (SE16) RTM Co Ltd  UKUT 0503 (LC) applied).
ASSETHOLD LTD V 13-24 ROMSIDE PLACE RTM Co LTD  UKUT 603 (LC) Freeholder Incorrectly Named So RTM Participation Notice Invalid
Summary: A notice of invitation to participate in the RTM was invalid because it incorrectly named the landlord (the freehold title had been transferred and the notice named the former freehold owner). It followed that, as a claim notice can only be given if a valid notice of invitation to participate has first been served as required by subsection 79(2) of the 2002 Act, the RTM company was not entitled on the relevant date to acquire the right to manage the premises.
ASSETHOLD LTD v 7 SUNNY GARDENS RTM COMPANY LTD  UKUT 509 (LC): No Service of An RTM Notice Of Participation Caused Prejudice
Summary: No notice of invitation to participate in the RTM was served on a deceased leaseholder’s personal representatives in accordance with s.78 of the 2002 Act. The RTM had failed to adduce any evidence that the defect in compliance with the statutory procedure had not caused prejudice so its claim was dismissed.
AVON FREEHOLDS LTD V REGENT COURT RTM CO LTD  UKUT 213 (LC);  L. & T.R. 23: RTM Entitled To Acquire The Right
Summary: The RTM was entitled to acquire the right to manage despite a failure to serve a notice inviting participation under s.78 of the 2002 Act on the tenant of one flat.
COLUMBIA HOUSE PROPERTIES (No3) LTD v IMPERIAL HALL RTM COMPANY LTD  UKUT 30 (LC): RTM Claim Can Include Costs
Summary: A landlord’s costs in dealing with a Right to Manage claim could include the costs incurred by managing agents under a management agreement.
FAIRHOLD MERCURY LTD v HQ (BLOCK 1) ACTION MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD  UKUT 487 (LC): Omission Of Letters ‘RTM’ Not Fatal To Status
Summary: The Upper Tribunal (Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President) held that the omission of the letters “RTM” in the name of a company which otherwise satisfied the requirements of s.73 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was not fatal to the company’s status as a right to manage company.
R (ON THE APPLICATION OF O TWELVE BAYTREE LIMITED) v RENT ASSESSMENT PANEL  EWHC 1229 (Admin): Tribunal To Decide On RTM Withdrawal
Summary: Under the old tribunal rules an applicant could not bring to an end an application for a determination that they had the right to manage under s84(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 simply by serving a notice of withdrawal. The tribunal had to decide whether to accede to the request to withdraw or go on to make a substantive determination.