9 Holland Road, London W14 8HJ LON/00AW/LVM/2025/0013-9-HOLLAND-ROAD-LONDON-W14-8HJ

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00AW/LVM/2025/0013-9-HOLLAND-ROAD-LONDON-W14-8HJ

Between

(1) Paul Cleaver of Urang Property Management Ltd (Tribunal-appointed manager) (2) Laura NazariaApplicant

(1) Ms C Norris (also known as Kitty Mason) (2) Mr Nicholas KullmannRespondent

Before

Judge Adrian Jack and Tribunal Member Jennifer Rodericks MRICS

Both in person for the Applicant

of counsel; Mr Kullmann in person assisted by Alex Verbeek Extension or variation of an order for for the Respondent

Date 26 May 2026

Property: 9 Holland Road, London W14 8HJ (1) Paul Cleaver of Urang Property Management Ltd (Tribunal-

Type of application: the appointment of a manager Judge Adrian Jack and Tribunal

DECISION

[1]The first applicant, Mr Cleaver, was appointed as manager of the premises by an order of the Tribunal dated 4th December 2020 for a term expiring on 17th December 2025. He replaced an earlier manager appointed by the Tribunal in 2017. By an application dated 21st November 2025 the applicants seek an extension of his appointment to 17th December 2027.

[2]The property is a period house divided into four flats. Ms Mason, the first respondent, is the freeholder. She is in possession of Flats A and B. She lives in one flat and uses the other as a school. The second applicant, Ms Nazaria, holds a long lease of Flat C which she acquired comparatively recently. Mr Kullmann, the second respondent, holds a long lease of Flat D.

[3]There is a long history of disagreement between Ms Mason and the tenants (including Ms Nazaria’s predecessor in title). A particular issue was the extent to which Ms Mason could properly charge items to the service charge which benefited herself. This is an ongoing issue. There are proposals to replace windows in the floor of a terrace used by Ms Mason with “walk-on roof lights” and there is an issue as to whether this is an improvement for the benefit of Ms Mason which cannot properly be passed through the service charge account for the building. There are also major works which commenced but then stopped due to the contractor walking off site. We touch on the other disputes below.

[4]All parties are agreed that Mr Cleaver’s appointment should continue. Mr Kullmann suggests that an extension to 17th December 2026 is sufficient. The other parties all suggest that the two year extension initially requested to 17th December 2027 should be made.

[5]There are currently major works which are due to recommence shortly. In our judgment it would not be in the best interests of the parties if there was a change (or potential change) in the manager in the middle of major works. That is a serious risk if Mr Kullmann’s submission as to the length of the extension were to be accepted. Accordingly, we consider it appropriate to extend the period of Mr Cleaver’s appointment to 17th December 2027.

[6]This leads to the main issue of dispute: whether, as Mr Cleaver submits, the extension should be a straightforward extension or whether the Tribunal should impose conditions on the extension. In deciding this issue we bear in mind two principles. The first is that it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to attempt to micro-manage the work to be carried out by the Tribunal-appointed manager. Once a manager is appointed, it is for the manager to exercise his or her own judgment as to how the property should best be managed. The second is that disputes about service charges are most satisfactorily dealt with by a properly formulated application made under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which gives this Tribunal jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness and payability of actual and proposed service charges.

[7]Mr Kullmann proposes that the extended management order should provide: “Before issuing any service charge demand in respect of works to Roof J (the flat roof of the rear ground floor extension) including the replacement of roof light panels, the Manager shall:(a) obtain a written report from an independent surveyor — independent of the Manager, of the Manager's group companies, and of the Freeholder — addressing the following matters: (i) the cost of basic like-for-like repair or replacement of the existing roof light panels, stated separately from any additional cost attributable to a walk-on or architectural glass specification; (ii) to the extent reasonably ascertainable from inspection and available records, what proportion of the required works to Roof J is attributable to: the original construction quality of the rear extension; the Freeholder's use of the roof surface as a terrace, nursery walkway, or storage area; ordinary weathering and wear; or any combination of the above; and (iii) whether, and to what extent, any portion of the required expenditure may properly be recoverable by the Manager from the Freeholder, whether as damages for breach of the lease or otherwise;

(b) provide leaseholders with a copy of that report before any demand in respect of Roof J works is issued; and

(c) confirm in writing to leaseholders the basis on which any demand has been calculated, including whether any amount has been excluded from the demand as being properly attributable to the Freeholder, and what steps (if any) the Manager intends to take to recover such amount from the Freeholder.”

[8]This in our judgment breaches both principles we have outlined. Further, it is not in general for manager to investigate historic matters, such as the reason for leaks from Roof J. As Mr Cleaver pointed out, an independent surveyor is unlikely to be able to investigate historic matters of this nature.

[9]Mr Kullmann also submits that there is a legal impediment to extending the current management order. He says: “The statutory test for extending a management order is set out in section 24(9A) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Before varying or extending an order, this Tribunal must be satisfied that doing so will not result in a recurrence of the circumstances which led to the original order being made. The circumstances that led to the original order at this building were clear and recorded in this Tribunal's own decisions: the freeholder was passing the costs of her own works and improvements through the service charge without proper scrutiny, and leaseholders had no adequate protection against it. If the extended order contains no mechanism to prevent that pattern recurring — if Urang is simply reappointed on the same terms with no obligation to apportion costs properly before demanding them — then the Tribunal cannot properly be satisfied that the statutory test under section 24(9A) is met.

[10]We do not accept that Mr Cleaver is likely improperly to seek to pass irrecoverable expenses through the service charge. He may of course make mistakes and seek to recover monies which are not properly due, but we do not accept that he is likely to do so deliberately. In any event, there is a remedy: to apply to the Tribunal under section 27A.

[11]Mr Modha, on Ms Norris’ behalf, submitted:

[37]Mr Cleaver has confirmed that Urang ‘will provide accounting information in line with statutory requirements and Tribunal directions’. It is essential that final audited accounts are provided. A direction to this effect is not onerous.

[38][Ms Norris] accepts Mr Cleaver’s proposals for communication subject to a caveat. Mr Cleaver should respond without undue delay to reasonable requests for clarification of service charge. This Application is not made under s27A LTA 1985 but there are numerous issues and discrepancies on which [she] seeks clarity. Transparency on these issues will minimise the prospects of a future s27A application.”

[12]Again, we do not consider that this form of micro-management is appropriate.

[13]There is a further issue as to reconciliation of the monies in the reserve fund. This is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is a matter for the County Court.

[14]Ms Nazaria did not pursue her proposals that there be conditions attached to the extension of the management order and in any event for the reasons given we would have refused to attach any conditions to the extension.

[15]The Tribunal’s directions of 17th March 2026 suggested that the order for the extension of any appointment be in the new standard form of order. Originally, we were minded to update the terms of the order, but none of the parties showed any enthusiasm for this and there is no particular need for the updating. The terms of the existing order have worked well. In these circumstances we merely extend the existing order to 17th December 2027. Mr Cleaver’s annual management fee per flat is, however, increased to £450 per flat plus VAT.

[16]Mr Kullmann applies for an order pursuant to section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 preventing the costs of the current proceeding being reclaimed through the service charge. In our judgment, Mr Cleaver is the substantial winner of these proceedings. We make no determination as to whether he is entitled to recover any costs through the service charge. However, insofar as he is entitled to, in our judgment it is not appropriate to prevent his doing so. DETERMINATION(a) The existing order appointment Mr Cleaver as manager is extended to 17th December 2027 with his annual management fee increased to £450 plus VAT per flat

(b) The Tribunal refuses to make an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Signed: Adrian Jack Dated: 26th May 2026