Re: 2-4 Westferry Road, London, E14 8JL

<p> The applicants had already applied to the LVT for the appointment of a manager. <br> This application had been successful in 1999 and there had been a variation in 2001, re-appointing the same manager until the end of 2005. They applied again to extend his appointment for a second time. The respondent freeholder objected on three grounds; firstly they argued that the Order appointing the manager did not contain any provision enabling it to be extended; secondly they argued that s24(9) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 did not confer on the LVT a jurisdiction to vary an order; finally they argued that it was not just and covenient for the management order to continue. <br> The LVT rejected these arguments. It held that the absence of an express clause permitting the manager’s appointment to be extended was not fatal. The LVT retained a general discretion to review the appointment of the manager and the terms of his appointment. Secondly, s24(9) permitted the LVT to vary or discharge any order as it felt appropriate. Parliament cannot have intended parties to have to issue a new application, with the associated costs, both financial and in terms of time, every time they wanted simply to preserve the status quo. Finally, it clearly was just and convenient to make the order sought. The managing agents were doing an excellent job and should be permitted to continue to do so.<br> Analysis<br> The decision is not particularly surprising, but it is welcome as a confirmation of the commonly accepted position, namely that the LVT is able to vary management orders as it feels appropriate. This must be right. The manager appointed under s24 is a servant of the LVT, not the parties. The LVT must retain powers to deal with him and the terms of his appointment. <br> 006</p>