19 Hove Park Villas, Hove, BN3 6HH CHI/00ML/LVM/2024/0002
DECISION
[1]This is a building converted into two flats, one of which is held on a long lease by Ms Stafford and Mr Brett. The other flat is owned by Mr and Mrs Branson. Mr Branson is also the freeholder.[2]By Order dated 8th November 2022 Mr John was appointed manager until 24th December 2024. Mr John made an application for an extension of his appointment as he believes a further period of 18 months shall be required to achieve the objectives identified in the decision and order appointing him.[3]Directions were issued on 19th June 2024. Subsequently further directions were issued on 13th August 2024 which included listing the matter for a hearing.[4]The directions have substantially been complied with and an electronic hearing bundle of 121 pdf pages was provided. References in [ ] are to pages within that bundle. Hearing[5]The hearing took place remotely by CVP. The panel were all at Havant Justice Centre. The hearing was attended by Mr John, Ms Stafford and Mr Branson.[6]Mr Branson had made a case management application to refer to the fact that the flat he occupied was owned by him and his wife. At the start of the hearing the Tribunal confirmed that he and his wife would be added as a further Respondent to reflect that they owned a leasehold interest jointly in their flat.[7]Below is a precis of the hearing which was recorded.[8]Mr Branson objected to the extension. Ms Stafford supported the same.[9]Mr John referred to the statements he had provided [31-36] dated 12th July and 20th September 2024.[10]He explained that works had not proceeded as quickly as he had initially hoped. He explained some of the reasons in his statement including a bout of ill health. He is confident that progress is being met and that the original objectives given for his appointment can be completed within 18 months.[11]He explained having taken the Property on it was clear that no repairs had been undertaken for 8 years or longer. Further communication between the occupiers had broken down. He is satisfied that by the end of this calendar year substantial works will have been undertaken and other works will have been programmed.[12]Mr John confirmed upon questioning by Ms Stafford that he was confident works will move forward. He expressed the view that co-operation by the parties with him is key.[13]Mr John confirmed to the Tribunal his health issues were now in the past.[14]Ms Stafford stated she had found Mr John easy to deal with and responsive. She supports the extension.[15]Mr Branson suggests the past history leading to Mr John’s appointment is not relevant. He suggests nothing has started and there has been no progress. He referred to wanting to move as soon as the works are completed. He believes the works should be undertaken in a different way to that being adopted by Mr John.[16]Mr Branson accepted if we were to extend that a two year extension would be needed for the works to be completed.[17]Upon questioning by the Tribunal he explained if management was returned to him he would start by having a survey undertaken by the surveyors who undertook a survey in 2016. Once updated he would then look to proceed reliant upon such survey. He explained he would instruct managing agents. He remained adamant he had prior to the last hearing and the appointment of Mr John appointed Austin Rees.[18]Mr Branson stated he had co-operated fully. He wants the works done as soon as possible.[19]In reply Mr John explained what works had been undertaken including to the roof above the front entrance and the quotes obtained for interior works including to deal with dry rot.[20]Mr John stated that he believes part of his remit is to ensure there is value for money. He believes he is achieving that by his actions. He does not believe he is always having full co-operation.[21]Mr John confirmed he was happy with the terms of the Management Order and simply seeks an extension of the term. He proposed 12 to 18 months being the shortest period he thought he would need. Determination[22]We have considered carefully all within the bundle and said at the hearing. We remind ourselves that the original Tribunal determined it was just and convenient for a manager to be appointed given the conduct of Mr Branson in his role as freeholder due to the lack of effective management for many years (see original decision dated 8 November 2022 [25-30]).[23]It is clear that Mr John has made substantial progress. His reports plainly evidence this notwithstanding his health issues.[24]We note that Mr Branson has no clear plan. He suggests he would effectively start again and have a further survey undertaken. This is against the backdrop that he wants works done as soon as possible.[25]Ms Stafford supports the extension.[26]We are satisfied that it is appropriate having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case to extend the appointment. We are conscious that a lot of work remains to be completed. Mr John suggests an 18 month extension which would then end during the middle of a service charge year under the leases. We consider it more appropriate to extend his term to end in accordance with a service charge year being the 24th December. We consider 2 years to be appropriate and so extend the order until 24 December 2026.[27]This will ensure the works and any snagging can be completed. Mr John can then liaise with the freeholder or any agents the freeholder chooses to appoint to ensure a timely and efficient handover of the management.[28]Mr John referred to the fact that on occasion parties had been slow in making payments. At the date of the hearing all payments demanded had been made. We remind parties that if payments are not made Mr John is entitled to take action to recover the same which may lead to costs being charged to any defaulting party. Certainly, this Tribunal would take a dim view of any party not making payment promptly when requested to do so.[29]Finally we note that Mr John has paid Tribunal fees totalling £330. We find that such costs may be recovered as part of the service charge to be paid in the proportions as provided within the parties’ leases. RIGHTS OF APPEAL[1]A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to rpsouthern@justice.gov.uk[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.[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.