The 41 leasehold properties at Arnoldfield Court and Gonerby Road Grantham as listed in the Schedule BIR/37UE/LVT/2025/0001
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No BIR/37UE/LVT/2025/0001
Between
Amplius Living (Community Benefit Society No 7853)ApplicantThe leaseholders listed in the ScheduleRespondent
Before
D BarlowShakespeare Martineau LLP for the ApplicantDate 20 July 2026Property: The 41 leasehold properties at Arnoldfield Court and Gonerby Road Grantham as listed in the Schedule Amplius Living (Community BenefitType of application: To vary two or more leases by a majority
DECISION
The Tribunal makes no order to vary the leases set out in the Schedule
REASONS
[1]The Applicant is the freehold landlord of the 41 purpose-built flats listed in the Appendix. The landlord owns one flat. The Respondent leaseholders listed Schedule are the current tenants of the remaining 40 flats, which they hold under their respective leases listed in the Schedule (“the leases”).[2]The Applicant seeks an order under s37 of the 1987 Act, varying the leases. The variation sought is straightforward.[3]Arnoldfield operates as an Independent Living Scheme. The lease provides for a resident Scheme Manager for the purposes of emergency calls. The need for the manager to reside at the Property no longer confers any material benefit in that the residents now have the protection of a 24-hour lifeline system to meet emergency support needs. The appointment of a non-residential Scheme Manager is now regarded as the more appropriate appointment, consistent with the nature of the scheme and at a significantly lower cost to the service charge. Compliance with s37 of the Act[4]Notice of the application has been served on the leaseholders and interested parties. The Tribunal has not received any objections from the leaseholders.[5]The Landlord states that prior to filing the application it balloted the leaseholders on the proposed variation. Of the possible 41 leaseholders, 28 voted in favour of the variation, 12 did not respond but on examination of the possible reasons for this it appears that 11 of the 12 were not in a position to vote because for instance, they were uncontactable, some had moved, some were residing elsewhere one was deceased. There were 2 objections. Of the 31 residents able to actively participate in the voted yes (90.3%), 2 voted no (6.5%) and 1 provided no response (3.2%).[6]The 1987 Act requires that at least 75% of the relevant parties to have consented. There have been no objections to the application.[7]The relevant parties are defined in s37(5) and (6) as the ‘parties concerned’. They are:a. The tenant under each lease to be varied (each count as one ‘party concerned’).b. The landlord counts as one additional ‘party concerned’.[8]In this case there are 41 tenant parties plus 1 landlord party giving 42 ‘parties concerned’. It is not relevant that some of the leaseholders do not vote or are for whatever reason unable to vote.[9]Of the 42 parties concerned, section 37 (5)(b) requires there to be no more than 10% i.e. 4.2 objections. There are only 2. However, section 37(5)(b) also requires 75% of the 42 ‘parties concerned’ to have consented i.e. 31.5. So, 32 consents to the variation are required. There are only 28 consents which does not reach the statutory threshold. If the landlord is also consenting that makes 29 consents, but this is still 3 consents short of required 32.[10]There is no basis under the statute for excluding non-participating leaseholders from the calculation. It starts with the leaseholders identified in the application as being those whose leases are subject to the variation. The tenants whose lease are to be varied is the denominator regardless of whether the flats are vacant, the leaseholder lacks capacity or is deceased. They cannot simply be excluded from the count. Decision and Reasons[11]For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the requirements of section 37(5) are met, namely that although the application was not opposed by more than 10 per cent of the total number of relevant parties, at least 75 per cent of that number have not consented to it.[12]For the same reasons no order can be made varying the leases.[13]Within 21 days of this decision the Applicant shall file stamped addressed envelopes addressed to each of the 41 leaseholders, to enable the Tribunal to serve a copy of this Decision on the leaseholders (as required following the Upper Tribunal decision in Hyslop v 38/41 CHG Residents Co Ltd [2017] UKUT 0398 (LC)). D Barlow Deputy Regional Judge Rights of appeal• By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.• If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.• If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.• The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.• If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).