Albert Court, Market Street, Torquay, Devon. TQ1 3AH. CHI/00HH/LAM/2021/0004

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No CHI/00HH/LAM/2021/0004

Between

Krzysztof Kazimierz Pilch, Adrian Suchorski and Malgorzata Suchorska, Anthony Cattemull, Krzysztof Nowosad, and Monika Nowosad and Krzysztof Nogas (leaseholders) and Yvette Condren (Nominated Manager)Applicant

Steven Millar (freeholder)Respondent

Before

Judge C A Rai (Chairman)

Mr M C Woodrow MRICS

Date 27 August 2021

Property: Albert Court, Market Street, Torquay, Devon TQ1 3AH.

Type of application: Appointment of a manager – Section 24 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (the Act)

DECISION

[1]This decision was made following a remote Hearing which was not objected to by the parties. It was attended by Mr Pilch and Mr Suchorski (leaseholders), Mr Millar (freeholder), Ms Walker of DN Property Management, Mrs Condren and the Tribunal members by video.

[2]Initially Mr Suchorski was unable to join the Hearing but he did later. Mrs Condren was unable to operate her camera but could “see” the other attendees and could be heard by the other parties, including the Tribunal, throughout the Hearing. A face to face Hearing was not held as it was not practicable.

[3]The documents to which we were referred at the Hearing were in a single hearing bundle (91 pages). Subsequently the Tribunal received a copy of the section 22 notice (2 pages), The freeholder first response dated 4 August 2021 (3 pages), three screenshots of emails (1 page), an excel spreadsheet (1 page), projected service charge expenditure for the year ending 31 December 2016 (2 pages) and a copy bank statement for a business account in the name of Darren Stocks for a period between March and September 2017 (2 pages). The Applicant provided a further response (2 pages), and a copy of the accounts for 2019/2020 (8 pages). The freeholder’s second response is dated 11 August 2021 (2 pages).

[4]The Property is a converted three storey Victorian building located in the centre of Torquay. The Property fronts on to Market Street. A yard behind the building is accessed through two sets of electronically controlled gates. The flats within the building front all face the yard. The ground floor of the building, formerly shops, has not been converted. Previous tribunals were told that the developer intended to construct an additional six flats. The eighteen existing flats are located on the first, second and third floors. Eleven flats have been sold to leaseholders. The Respondent retained ownership of the other seven flats and lets these to tenants. External walkways front the eighteen flats at three levels. A lift, constructed as an external addition to the original building, is located next to the external concrete staircase which also provides access to all the flats.

[5]The Tribunal previously appointed two managers. Mr Richard Norton was appointed in 2017. He failed to fulfil his duties to the Tribunal. Following an application to the Tribunal to vary the management order, he was discharged on 23 September 2019. At the same time Mrs Angela Dixon was appointed as tribunal manger in his place, on an interlocutory basis, for six months from 23 September 2019. Her appointment expired on 31 January 2020.

[6]Mrs Dixon continued to manage the Property after the expiry of her appointment. She did not apply to the Tribunal for an extension of her appointment.

[7]Mrs Dixon has not complied fully with the order appointing her as she did not submit a final report to the Tribunal or accounts up to end date of her appointment. The Tribunal has referred to these omissions later in this decision and taken account of the further evidence disclosed by the Applicants following the Hearing.

[8]The Applicants applied to the Tribunal dated 29 March 2021 for the appointment of a manager of the Property. Originally, they sought to re-appoint Mrs Dixon; later they amended their application seeking to appoint Mrs Condren instead.

[9]The Tribunal was told that Mrs Condren had, until recently, been employed by Mrs Dixon and had assumed responsibility for the day to day management of the Property during the term of Mrs Dixon’s appointment. She has built up a good working relationship with the Applicants.

[10]The Tribunal issued Directions dated 12 May 2021 which, amongst other things, directed the Applicants to serve a section 22 Notice on the Respondent. At the Hearing Mr Pilch confirmed that this had not been done. The Tribunal explained that it could not consider the Application unless the notice was served. At the Hearing Mr Pilch admitted he had misunderstood that the Applicants had been directed to serve that notice. The Tribunal told the parties that it would write to them following the Hearing and explain what they must do.

[11]Mr Pilch told the Tribunal that following Mr Norton’s appointment as Manager by the Tribunal (on 1 November 2017), he was unable to contact him. He could not obtain any information about the costs of the services. By talking to his neighbours, he was able to establish that it had been impossible to obtain sufficient contributions from the owners of all the flats to cover the costs of the services because the freeholder was not making sufficient contributions for both the undeveloped flats and those flats he retained. The leases provide for each lessee to pay 1/24 (4.16%) of the annual costs.

[12]When it became apparent that Mr Norton was not fulfilling his duties as the Tribunal appointed manager, the lessees applied to the Tribunal for a variation of the Management order. This application resulted in the discharge of Mr Norton as manager and the Tribunal making an interlocutory order appointing Mrs Angela Dixon for six months.

[13]No further applications were received and Mrs Dixon continued to manage the Property following the expiry of her appointment as manager. The scope and terms of her subsequent management was not explained to the Tribunal during the Hearing.

[14]Following the submission of their application to the Tribunal, Mr Pilch told the Tribunal that he had discovered, by chance, that Mrs Dixon had sold her business. He said that she had not informed the Applicants or any of the lessees of the sale.

[15]Mrs Condren left Mrs Dixon’s employment and set up her own management business. Mr Pilch said that the current leaseholders wish to continue their relationship with Mrs Condren which is why they applied for her to be appointed by the Tribunal as manager of the Property instead of Mrs Dixon.

[16]Mrs Condren confirmed to the Tribunal that she is willing to take on the management of the Property. She told the Tribunal that she has been managing 96 flats in 9 blocks, the largest of which contains 26 units. She said her most challenging task had been to explain and carry out a section 20 consultation exercise prior to obtaining contributions from the leaseholders to fund and complete major works. She was able to answer the questions which the Tribunal asked her about the procedure.

[17]Mrs Condren said that she has had previous letting experience and set up her company about three years ago but only recently obtained appropriate insurance for the management of blocks of flats.

[18]Mrs Condren is currently a level 3 associate member of the Institute of Residential Property Management (IRPM) and is working towards obtaining level 4 which would entitle her to refer to that accreditation on her website. She obtained appropriate indemnity insurance in June of 2021 [page 44 ].

[19]In response to an enquiry from the Tribunal, Mrs Condren suggested that the term of appointment should be one year. The Tribunal suggested that it was unlikely that this would be long enough to carry out the works required. Mrs Condren said that she needed to ensure that the lift was operating reliably and she would need to arrange for the electronic gates to be repaired. Her main priority was to manage resources and ensure that the service charges demanded will enable the provision of the necessary services.

[20]Mr Millar told the Tribunal that he had not received a copy of the Application. He said that the address used to send him papers was wrong and that he was not skilled in electronic communication.

[21]The Tribunal stated that since the Covid-19 pandemic it was working remotely and for that reason, it currently sends and receives most communications electronically.

[22]Subsequent investigations revealed that Mr Millar had received the information the Tribunal sent to him about connecting to the Hearing. That correspondence was sent electronically to the same email address used by the Applicant to send him the application.

[23]Mr Millar, in contradiction of his previous statement, also told the Tribunal that he had responded to the Application by letter to the Tribunal office. However, a subsequent investigation failed to reveal any record that Mr Millar had responded to the application.

[24]The Tribunal informed Mr Millar that he would be given an opportunity to respond to the Application following receipt of the section 22 notice. It told both parties that the case officer would email them following the hearing explaining what must be done and providing Mr Millar with at least 7 days in which to respond.

[25]Following the Hearing, the Tribunal sent a letter to the parties dated 13 July 2021 by email which advised the Applicants that they must serve a section 22 notice on the freeholder which could be done by email to the same email address as they had been using for Mr Millar. Mr Millar was required to respond within 7 days of receipt of that notice but advised that he could, if required, agree an extension of the time with the Applicants and should notify the Tribunal if both accepted this was necessary.

[26]The Tribunal subsequently received a copy of the section 22 notice dated 15 July 2021, Mr Millar’s response dated 4 August 2021, images of three screen shots showing ground rent demands for flats 3, 5, 7 & 11; an email from Angela Dixon to Mr Millar dated 29 July 2021 and an email from Mrs Dixon to Mrs Walker dated 9 February 2021; and an excel spreadsheet relating to ground rent in respect of Flats 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18 for periods up to September 2020.

[27]On 10 August 2021 the Tribunal received a short response from the Applicants regarding Mr Millar’s response together with a copy of the service charge accounts for Albert Court for the year ending 30 September 2020. On 11 August 2021 Mr Millar sent a second response. The Section 22 Notice and the grounds of the Application

[28]The Applicants referred to the following grounds in support of the Application:-a. Disrepair of the lift

b. Nuisance caused by Mr Millar’s tenant including an unroadworthy car parked in the car park with his consent

c. Late payment of maintenance contributions for the retained flats coupled with inadequate contributions for the undeveloped part of the building

d. Disrepair to the roof

e. Failure of electric gate

f. No painting or decoration of external common parts

g. Until the appointment of Mrs Dixon, lack of cleaning of external common parts

h. A failure to provide evidence of buildings insurance

i. Past failure to provide and keep service charge accounts

j. Past failure to demand ground rent, and

k. Absence of management and lack of “management” contact prior to the appointment of Mrs Dixon. The freeholder’s (Mr Millar’s) response

[29]Mr Millar denied he was in breach of his obligations to the Applicants. He said that “all queries regarding the lift should be referred to the managing company which was appointed previously by the Tribunal”. He provided what he said was a copy of a screenshot stating that the lift company has been paid for the lift works and the lift was repaired in May 2017. (The Tribunal assumed this is a reference to the bank statement in the name of Darren Stocks on which it has later commented). He said that the unroadworthy vehicle parked in the car park was not causing an obstruction and was parked on land belonging to him.

[30]Mr Millar denied he had not contributed towards maintenance and claimed he had contributed £600 per month since October 2020. He suggested that “Dixons” had collected ground rent on his behalf which implied that this was retained towards his maintenance contributions.

[31]Mr Millar denied that his tenants caused any nuisance and provided a screenshot referring to the resolution of a noise complaint in February 2020.

[32]Mr Millar omitted to comment on the Applicant’s reference to roof repairs, the entrance gate and lack of decoration stating that these omissions should be referred to the managing agent but he was happy to proceed and issue section 20 notices and hold an “annual general meeting” to determine which works were a priority.

[33]Mr Millar said he always complied with all the covenants in relation to the multiple properties that he owned. He suggested that based on the email correspondence between Ms Walker and Mrs Dixon, which he had disclosed, Mrs Condren had not behaved professionally and had attempted to take business from Mrs Dixon. He said that as freeholder of seven flats and six shops he wished to see “a trustworthy person” managing the Property.

[34]Mr Millar said that in the past “the accountant” has been involved in the management which has been taken away from him and to support this, he enclosed a copy of “the Accounts for 2016”.

[35]Mr Millar said that if Mrs Condren were to be appointed, she would be the fourth manager in as many years. He said that the Tribunal appointed Crown Property Management, Richard Norton and Dixons.

[36]Finally, Mr Millar said he intended to “apply for a limited company and appoint leaseholders as directors to run the block”. He suggested using Mrs Walker “in advisory capacity as she has over 5 years of solely block management experience in order to keep service charges lower.” and offered to arrange a meeting with all the leaseholders.

[37]In the Applicants’ response to Mr Millar’s statement, they submit that Mr Millar’s monthly contribution of £600 is in respect of his seven flats. However, he is paying nothing for the undeveloped ground floor. Since the leases provide for a 1/24 contribution, the contribution will always be inadequate. Whilst they accept that ground rents can be put towards the deficit, the total amount per year of £1,650 (11 x £150) is inadequate to make up the shortfall in Mr Millar’s contribution.

[38]The Applicants also identified that Mr Millar’s evidence regarding expenditure on lift repairs related to a “historic” period between March and September 2017.

[39]The Applicants stated again that Mr Millar cannot allow his tenant to keep an unroadworthy vehicle in the car park and by doing so, is in breach of the covenants in the Lease.

[40]The Applicants have provided a copy of the accounts for the year ending September 2020 which were prepared and circulated by Mrs Condren whilst she was employed by Mrs Dixon. Mr Millar appears to have had no part in the preparation and circulation of these accounts.

[41]The Applicants disputed that lower service charges would be of any benefit to the leaseholders in maintaining the Property. They stated that Mr Millar has never had a management plan for the Property. They also stated that his statement alleging misconduct on the part of Mrs Condren, whilst inaccurate, is also irrelevant in the context of their application.

[42]The Applicants stated that the ground rent demands sent out on behalf of the Respondent by Mrs Walker did not comply with the Section 177 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. They consider that is evidence of her unsuitability to be involved in the role of managing agent. The Lease

[43]The hearing bundle included a copy of a lease of one flat in the Property. The Tribunal has assumed, in the absence of contrary submissions from either party, that all the leases are in a similar form containing the same covenants and obligations. The name of the lessee and the number of the flat were both redacted. It referred (confusingly) to a demise of 125 years from 25 December 2007 in the Prescribed Clauses but a demise of 125 years from 25 December 2013 in the definition of Term in the lease. The lease was apparently granted in 2014 so the Tribunal has assumed that the term runs from 2013, although nothing turns on that.

[44]There are no plans attached to the Lease and the Estate is defined by reference to “Plan A” on which it should be shown edged red. The Tribunal has assumed that it includes the car parking areas as these are included within the areas the maintenance of which is a lessor responsibility.

[45]The lessee has the right to park “a roadworthy vehicle in an off road parking space”, paragraph 12 of the First Schedule [page 24].

[46]Ground rent is payable in advance on 25 December in each year.

[47]The Maintenance Charge is described in the Sixth Schedule as a yearly sum equal to 4.1666 recurring percent of the total of the lessor’s costs of :-a. complying with the covenants in paragraphs 2 – 5 and 9 and 10 of the Fourth Schedule and

b. managing agents’ fees

c. costs of ascertaining Maintenance Charge to include auditors’ costs and bookkeeping costs

d. a reserve fund contribution

e. hire charges for communal refuse bins

f. other expenses incurred by lessor in proper and convenient management and running of the Estate

g. any Value Added or other tax payable in respect of all costs within the other paragraphs of the Sixth Schedule

[48]The Maintenance Charge is payable by two equal payments on 24 June and 25 December. There is a provision for any balance due because the payment estimated was insufficient in any year to be paid once an Auditor’s certificate has been served on the lessees.

[49]The lessors’ obligations are contained in the Fourth Schedule to the Lease and require him to keep in good and substantial repair and condition:-a. the roofs and external and load bearing walls, foundations, main structure, passenger lift, gutters and drainpipes, chimneys and chimney stacks of the Building and all pipes, sewers, pumps, drains, cables and wires and other conducting media in under or upon the Building and the Estate serving the Flat in common with other parts of the Building and all parts of the Building not comprised in this lease or a lease of any other part of the Building.

b. the entrances porches hallways passageways landing and staircases in the Building retained by the Landlord

c. the driveway footpaths cycle store and bin areas of the Estate and any other parts of the lease not comprised in the lease or a lease of another part of the Building

d. the boundary walls or fences

e. any entry phone system electric gates or other communal security systems etc, and

f. any car parking area or areas [page 31].

[50]Paragraph 10 of the Fourth Schedule obliges the lessor to keep proper books of account in respect of expenditure and contributions received from the lessees and, as soon as practicable after 24 December in each year deliver to each lessee “a fair summary in writing certified by a qualified Accountant” of the costs incurred and monies expended by the Lessor during the preceding year [page 33].

[51]From the evidence that it heard, and the information in the documents supplied, the Tribunal has concluded that the lift is not currently working. The electronically controlled gates are also in need of repair. The building needs painting and the roof is leaking.

[52]An unroadworthy car belonging to one of the Respondent’s tenants has been parked in the yard. That is in clear breach of the covenants in the lease, with which the Respondent is obliged to comply.

[53]The Respondent has not disputed that the Building has not been painted since the leases were granted. His response was that this should be referred to the managing agent and that he will undertake section 20 consultation once works are prioritised. However, that statement is clearly “at odds” with the history of the lack of management of the Property since the Applicants’ leases were granted. On his own admission, ground rent has only recently been demanded from the lessees and, according to the Applicants, the demands served by Mrs Walker on his behalf did not comply with the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLARA).

[54]The Tribunal has not been provided with any evidence about the buildings’ insurance. There is no copy of a policy or evidence of premium payments in the bundle. However, there is reference to the cost of insurance in the list of administrative expenses listed in the “Detailed Income and Expenditure Account” for the year ended 30 September 2020.

[55]The Respondent stated that he has produced a copy of the Accounts for 2016. He has not. He provided a statement of Projected Expenditure for Albert Court prepared by JR & Associates Ltd. There is no indication of that company’s expertise. The statement contains several spelling mistakes. There is no explanation as to the basis of the expenditure projections and the total has been divided by 18 not 24 so the calculation is not compliant with the Sixth Schedule to the Lease which provides for a contribution of 4.1666% (1/24). It would appear that the Respondent’s failure to contribute the appropriate percentage of the service charges was “accepted” by JR & Associates which implies either that that firm were not familiar with the content of the Lease or simply relied upon the Respondent’s representations.

[56]That statement referred to payment of the service charge to Milsam Developments Ltd. The statement does not comply with the lessor’s obligations in paragraph 10 of the sixth schedule to the Lease which require him to produce a fair summary of the costs incurred and monies expended during the year ending 24 December which shows how those costs will be reflected in the demands for payment and whether the amounts demanded already are less than, or exceed, the actual expenditure and will result in either a further demand or a credit. Milsam Developments Ltd is not listed at Companies house. Mr Millar is currently a director of Millsam Developments Limited. However, the Lease was granted by Millan Homes LLP which is listed at Companies house. Since neither party has produced any land registry evidence of the identity of the freeholder, the Tribunal does not know whether Steven Millar or Millan Homes LLP is the freeholder. The Applicants referred to Steven Millar on the Application form. Mr Millar has not disputed that he has responsibility as freeholder for the management of the Property. He is a member of Millan Homes LLP.

[57]The Respondent supplied evidence, with his response, that that ground rents for three years were demanded in December 2020. The dates on the screenshots of the emails provided are not in English and the emails imply that Mrs Dixon was being instructed by and presumably, on behalf of the Respondent, to collect the ground rent due in advance in December 2020. The copies of the demands were not clear enough to enable the Tribunal to assess if the demands complied with CLARA.

[58]In his response to the section 22 Notice, the Respondent suggested that he had been unaware that he had to contribute service charges for the undeveloped part of the building until he was so advised by his solicitor. He has not however accepted that the leases also provide for service charge contributions to be paid twice a year and not monthly.

[59]The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s evidence that the Respondent’s contributions towards service charges has been incomplete. Currently he is contributing a monthly amount of £600. The lease provides for an annual payment in advance by way of two equal six monthly payments. His contributions should amount to 13/24 of the annual budget being in respect of the seven retained flats and the six undeveloped. It appears from the evidence provided, although the exact current contribution was not disclosed, that the monthly payment together with the annual ground rent due from the eleven leaseholders would still result in a shortfall in the Respondent’s contribution. As evidenced by the content of the statement of Projected Expenditure disclosed by the Respondent (which he described as accounts) he did not contribute his required share towards the service charges in past years.

[60]The statement made by the Respondent that Crown Property Management was appointed by the Tribunal is not correct. The first manager appointed by the Tribunal was Mr Norton in 2017, who was subsequently discharged from that appointment in September 2019. At the same time Mrs Dixon was appointed as manager until 14 January 2020. The only period during which a Tribunal appointed manager has managed Albert Court is between 1 November 2017 and 14 January 2020. The Law

[61]Section 22 of the Act provides that before an application under section 24 is made a notice must be served on the landlord.

[62]A notice under section 22 must contain the relevant information about the tenant, his address, the property concerned and that the tenant intends to apply for an order under section 24. It must identify the grounds of the application and the facts on which the tenant relies to establish those grounds.

[63]The Applicants have now served an appropriate section 22 notice on Mr Millar, the freeholder. Mr Millar has responded by suggesting that he would be prepared to undertake works after calling a meeting to discuss how necessary works would be funded.

[64]Under section 24 of the Act the tribunal may by order, appoint a manager to carry out, in relation to the Property, such functions in connection with the management of the Property as it thinks fit. The tribunal may only make such an order in defined circumstances. These include where the tribunal is satisfied the freeholder is in breach of any obligation owed to the tenant under the lease and it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case (Tribunal’s emphasis). There are other grounds which can be considered, but in this case the Applicants have identified a variety of breaches by the Landlord to comply with his obligations in the Lease.

[65]Having considered the grounds identified in the section 22 notice and the Applicants’ evidence, the Tribunal has concluded that:-a. Mr Millar has provided no evidence that he has ever undertaken any effective management of the Property since the eleven long leases were granted in or about 2014.

b. Mr Millar has not disclosed that service charge accounts have ever been produced by him, or on his behalf. Therefore, there is no evidence as to actual expenditure during the period he was responsible for the management and no explanation of the factual basis for the calculation of the service charges demanded by him, or on his behalf.

c. It appears that for many years Mr Millar has omitted to pay service charges for the ground floor of the building which resulted in a shortfall of 25% in the service charges every year (6/24).

d. The bank statements for a six month period between March and September 2017, which Mr Millar disclosed, reveal that during that period Crown Property (Darren Stocks) collected £5,302.30 (of which £1,260 was paid by Millsam) towards maintenance from which £2,292 was paid to Ideal Lifts and £1,575 was paid to Crown Property.

e. Mrs Dixon appears to have taken account of Mr Millar’s instructions since her appointment as Manager expired, albeit the Tribunal accepts that she was attempting to recover the ground rents due to him to increase the service charges available for the maintenance of the Property.

f. The disclosure by the Applicants of the 2020 accounts demonstrate that Mrs Dixon has only partly complied with her obligation to the Tribunal as set out in the original management order by which she was appointed. The Tribunal has not received the brief written report for the Tribunal on the progress and outcome of the management of the Property up to 14 January 2020. That report should have been accompanied by final closing accounts. Copies of that report and those accounts should have been served on the lessor and the lessees. Mrs Dixon was obliged to deal with questions raised by then within 14 days of receipt of the accounts and report and account to the paying parties for all unexpended monies which she held at that date.

g. Mrs Dixon has produced accounts for a one year period ending on 30 September 2020.

h. The lift, the entrance gates and the roof remain in disrepair and no evidence has been provided of any significant attempt to address these problems. No evidence has been provided that estimates of the costs of remedying the identified repairs have ever been obtained.

i. Mrs Condren has forged a relationship with the Applicants who have applied for her to be appointed as manager.

[66]For the reasons already explained, the Tribunal has not found Mr Millar’s submissions accurate or helpful. The Applicants have disputed the accuracy of Mr Millar’s submissions. The Tribunal accepts their evidence.

[67]The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has identified sufficient grounds to show it is necessary to appoint a manger of the Property and that it is just and convenient to make an order appointing Mrs Condren as manager of the Property for one year.

[68]Whilst the Tribunal was initially concerned with Mrs Condren’s limited management experience, it acknowledges that she displayed both enthusiasm and a willingness to take on the management of the Property during the Hearing. It is essential for the benefit of the Applicants that, going forward, Mrs Condren carries out effective management of this Property. To achieve this, she and the leaseholders will need to work together and collect the outstanding service charge contributions due from the Respondent. The parties have all demonstrated a willingness to do this.

[69]If any lessee of a flat within the Property finds that Mrs Condren’s management of the Property is unsatisfactory, he or she will independently be able to apply to the Tribunal under section 24(9) of the Act for a variation or discharge of the management order.

[70]Mrs Condren will be required to adhere to the RICS Management Code and consult all the lessees before incurring any substantial expenditure. At the Hearing, she told the Tribunal that she understands these obligations. She must fully comply with the terms of the management order to demonstrate her competency. Judge C A Rai (Chairman) Appeals

[1]A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Chamber must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case.

[2]The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision. Where possible you should send your further application for permission to appeal by email to rpsouthern@justice.gov.uk as this will enable the First-tier Tribunal to deal with it more efficiently.

[3]If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

[4]The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.