Albert Court, Market Street, Torquay, TQ1 3AQ CHI/00HH/LVM/2022/0005
DECISION
[1]This decision was made without a hearing following receipt of an application dated 28 May 2022 made by the Applicants, who are leaseholders of eleven flats within the Property for the variation of the Management Order dated 27 August 2021 by which the Tribunal had appointed Yvette Condren as Manager of the Property from 1 September 2021 until 31 August 2022.[2]The Applicants applied to vary the existing management order by extending it on the grounds that the Applicants are happy with the management. The Applicants did not specify the length of the extension period they wanted.[3]Directions dated 28 June 2022 made by Mr D Banfield, Regional Surveyor, which broadly directed that the Tribunal would determine if it is just and convenient to vary the existing management order and that pending its determination that order would remain in force with full effect.[4]The Application form was signed by Mr Pilch. Following the issue of Mr Banfield’s Directions all of the other Applicants confirmed they wished to be joined as Applicants. The Landlord’s agent, Ms Darynya Walker, wrote to the Tribunal on 30 June 2022 to confirm that the Landlord had no objection to the variation of the Management Order.[5]The Tribunal had received two reports from Mrs Condren in March and May 2022 about her progress with regard to the management of the Property since she had been appointed.[6]In their application, the Applicants confirmed that they wished to continue to work with Ms Condren and are very happy that “we are gong in right direction”. The Application confirmed that the Manager had managed to recover arrears for the units from the owner and was organising landlord and leaseholder meetings which enabled discussions about plans and needs which made them feel that they “are in good hands now”.[7]Mrs Condren sent a letter the Tribunal dated 14 September 2022 enclosing a copy of her current Professional Indemnity Insurance. She said she would be willing to accept the appointment for two years from September 2022.[8]The documents received by the Tribunal comprised:-(a) The Application with the additional applicants’ list(b) Emails from all the applicants (save for Mr Pilch who signed the Application) confirming they supported the Application and were content to be represented by Mr Pilch.(c) Email sent from or on behalf of the Landlord.[9]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. During previous hearings tribunal 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. (This description mirrors that contained in the previous decision but the Tribunal chairman has inspected the Property albeit some years prior to the date of this decision). The Law[10]Under section 24(9) of the Act the Tribunal may, on the application of any person interested, vary …(whether conditionally or unconditionally) an order under this section; and if he order has been protected by an entry registered under the Land Charges Act 1972 or the [Land Registration Act 2002], [the tribunal] may be order direct that the entry shall be cancelled[11]Section 24(9) A states that the Tribunal shall not vary or discharge an order under subsection (9) on the [application of any relevant person] unless it is satisfied-(a) that the variation or discharge of the order will not result in a recurrence of the circumstances which led to the order being made, and(b) that it is just and convenient in all the circumstances of the case to vary or discharge the order The Decision and reasons[12]The Application for the variation of the existing order by extending it for a period of two years has been supported by all eleven of the existing long leaseholders. The other seven converted flats are owned and let by the Landlord and the ground floor of the Property remains undeveloped although it potentially be developed as six additional flats. The Landlord retains ownership and control of these properties as part of his freehold. All of the leaseholders and the Landlord, as freeholder, support this Application.[13]The Tribunal has received confirmation from Ms Condren that she is prepared to be appointed as Manager for a further period of approximately two years.[14]The Tribunal has asked for confirmation that Ms Condren has provided it with up to details of her current Professional Indemnity Insurance Certificate but has in any case made the disclosure of this a condition of the Management Order.[15]The Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of what it received that Ms Condren complied with her obligations to the Tribunal in relation to the existing Management Order.[16]Where appropriate she has in the past sought clarification from the Tribunal in relation to the Management Order.[17]Taking account of all its dealings with both the Applicants and Ms Condren in her role as Tribunal Manager, since her appointment, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is just and convenient to appoint Ms Condren as Manager of the Property for a further two years. The period of Ms Condren’s appointment is set out in the Variation of the Management Order which precedes this decision. That Order is in a similar form to the previous Management Order but has been updated to take account of recent Tribunal Practice Statements and developments in Landlord and Tenant legislation. Judge C A Rai. 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 person making the application is seeking.