The appointment of an RTM company would not prevent a landlord from developing his property, as long as he took “all reasonable steps to minimise disturbance to the management functions of the RTM, both during and after the works”, a court has decided.
In Francia Properties v Aristou, Francia, the Court considered whether the landlord was entitled to develop a new flat on the roof space of a block called ‘The Optic’ in Battersea, south-west London.
The landlord was granted planning permission in 2015. This was opposed by Optic RTM Company Ltd, the building’s managing agent, as well as lessees of the flat.
The main issue in the case was whether the landlord’s actions interfered with the RTM company’s management functions, provided for in Sections 96 and 97 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
The sections state that “a landlord is not entitled to do anything that the RTM company is required or empowered to do, otherwise than pursuant to an agreement with the RTM company”.
The court said although the definition of ‘management functions’ was problematic, on the face of the 2002 Act, the law did give the RTM company control over relevant parts of the building.
However, the court found the transfer of rights to an RTM company did not interfere with certain property rights of the landlord, including the right to develop the building. As a result, the Act did not prevent the claimant from building the new flat on the roof.
The court noted the RTM itself was not permitted to construct new dwellings, and therefore the landlord was not proposing to do something that the RTM was required or empowered to do.
While the RTM’s management functions would be affected during the construction of the new flat, any disruption could be dealt with by appropriate undertakings.
Central London County Court gave the RTM company permission to appeal the result.
