© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
I’ll admit it: I enjoy running interesting technical arguments. Call it a guilty pleasure. I recognise, however, that these types of arguments can lead to outcomes that might be regarded as perverse or unjust. It is refreshing, therefore, when the Court (or Tribunal) adopts a common sense approach to technical/procedural compliance.
In Avon Freeholds v Regent Court RTM Co Ltd, the RTM company (“RCRTM”) sought to acquire the right to manage of Regent Court, in Plymouth. The landlord disputed the claim. One of the notices of invitation to participate had been sent to an address registered for service at the Land Registry, rather than the tenant’s flat (s.111(5) of the C&LRA 2002 (“the 2002 Act”)). Also, an earlier claim notice had been served which was invalid (insufficient opportunity to respond), but this notice had not been withdrawn, meaning the second notice (otherwise technically accurate) was also invalid.
The Upper Tribunal rejected both arguments. The requirement to serve a notice of invitation to participate is directory rather than mandatory, meaning it only invalidates the claim if prejudice was caused to the tenants. No prejudice had been caused. There was no need to withdraw the first notice, as it was invalid. RCRTM was entitled to rely on the second notice. This was the established position in respect of lease extension and collective enfranchisement claims, under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993; and there was no reason to depart from that position.
The second point is arguable. The 2002 Act is distinguishable from the 1993 Act, in several important respects. An application for permission to appeal is pending.
Following a similar theme, the LVT granted permission to appeal in Inspired Holdings & Eagil Trust Company v Danescroft RTM Company Ltd.
A few months prior to the RTM company’s incorporation, the landlord set up its own “RTM company”. The landlord argued the Applicant company was not a valid RTM company, because, under s.73(4) of the 2002 Act another RTM company was already in existence. The LVT disagreed. The landlord’s company was effectively a bogus company, or a “sham”, designed to frustrate the tenants’ claim. However, they accepted a novel point of law had been raised, and granted permission to appeal.
Common sense suggests the LVT decision has to be right.Whether the Upper Tribunal agrees remains to be seen.
Roger Hardwick is Head of Leasehold Enfranchisement at Brethertons LLP