Axis House, 262 Lewisham High Street, London SE13 6AD LON/00AZ/LRM/2024/0602

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00AZ/LRM/2024/0602

Between

Axis House RTM Company LimitedApplicant

Trinity (Estates) Property Management LimitedRespondent

Before

Judge Tagliavini

Mr John Naylor FRICS

Mr Stan Gallagher, counsel for the Applicant

Mr Philip Brown, counsel An application in relation to the denial of the Right to Manage under s.84(3) of the for the Respondent

Venue 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LR

Date 21 August 2025

Hearing 2025-08-07

Property: London SE13 6AD

Type of application: Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Judge Tagliavini

DECISION

The tribunal’s decision (1) The tribunal determines the applicant is entitled to acquire the right to manage the property at Axis House, 262 Lewisham High Street, London SE13 6AD three months after the tribunal’s decision becomes final. The application

[1]The applicant seeks a determination that on the relevant date (4 August 2024) it was entitled to acquire the right to manage Axis House, 262 Lewisham High Street, London SE13 6AD (‘the Property’) pursuant to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’). The Property

[1]The subject premises are a large, modern, purpose-built building constructed around 2007. The Background

[3]The Notice of Claim dated 4 August 2024was served on(i) the freeholder Adriatic Land 3 Limited;

(ii) on the respondent the third- party manager to the long lease flats and

(iii) Ekaya Housing Association Limited.

[4]Only the respondent served counter notice dated 3 Sept 2024 The counter notice alleged that applicant is not entitled to acquire the right to manage (‘the RTM’) for two reasons:(i) the premises are not a self-contained building or part of a building (as defined by 2002 Act, s. 72(1)(a)); and

(ii) that a notice of invitation had not been served on the Housing Association in respect of Flat 9.

[5]Subsequently, the respondent withdrew its objection to the application on the second issue at 4(ii) above. Therefore, the only issue left for the tribunal to determine was whether the Property was a self-contained building or part of a building as defined by s.72(1)(a) of the 2002 Act. The hearing

[6]The applicant was represented by Mr Stan Gallagher of counsel and the respondent by Mr Phillip Brown of counsel. The tribunal was provided with a digital bundle of 268 pages. At the beginning of the hearing, the applicant made an application at the hearing to rely upon two further witness statements from Mr Mohamed Ilyas Pathan and Mr Joel Lok Chi Chan who simply sought to adopt the witness statement of Mr Shahad Choudhary, a director of the applicant, who was unable to attend the oral hearing. Although the respondent objected to the late introduction of this evidence, the tribunal allowed the application, as it was of the view the two extra witness statements added very little and could easily be dealt with by the respondent in any cross-examination. The applicant’s case

[7]The applicant submitted that the Property comprises premises to which the RTM applies as defined by 2002 Act, s. 72, which provides: Premises to which Chapter applies(1) This Chapter applies to premises if— (a) they consist of a self-contained building or part of a building, with or without appurtenant property,

(2) A building is a self-contained building if it is structurally detached.

(3) A part of a building is a self-contained part of the building if— (a) it constitutes a vertical division of the building, (b) the structure of the building is such that it could be redeveloped independently of the rest of the building, and (c) subsection (4) applies in relation to it.

(4) This subsection applies in relation to a part of a building if the relevant services provided for occupiers of it— (a) are provided independently of the relevant services provided for occupiers of the rest of the building, or (b) could be so provided without involving the carrying out of works likely to result in a significant interruption in the provision of any relevant services for occupiers of the rest of the building.

(5) Relevant services are services provided by means of pipes, cables or other fixed installations.

(6) Schedule 6 (premises excepted from this Chapter) has effect.

[7]Mr Gallagher submitted that in any event the Property is clearly one or the other, and it really does not matter which alternative (a self- contained building or a self-contained part of a building) the subject premises fall into: though the direct evidence is sparse, it is clear enough that the services are provided independently of next door, or, in the most unlikely event that they are not, they could be without disruptive works.

[8]Consequently the argument between the parties centred on whether or not the flashings and closing detail bridging between the subject premises and the next door premises at 258-260 Lewisham High Street, is sufficient for the two structures not to be structurally detached.

[9]Mr Gallagher submitted that what makes it self-evident that the qualifying criteria are made out is that the Property was built after 258- 260 Lewisham High Street as evidenced by historic Google Street photos showing the empty space which was later filled by the building of the Property.

[10]The applicant also relied on the oral evidence of Mr John Howse BSc (Hons) MRICS of John Howse & Associates Ltd who spoke to his report dated 14 March 2025 who concluded in his report: ‘…in my opinion, AH (Axis House) and 258 are two separate and independent structures.’

[11]The applicant also relied upon the oral evidence of Mr Mohamed Ilyas Pathan and Mr Joel Lok Chi Chan who confirmed they adopted as their evidence, the written statement of Mr Shahad Choudhury. The respondent’s case

[12]Mr Brown submitted that the onus of establishing that an RTM company is entitled to acquire the right to manage is on the company; Assethold Ltd v. 63 Holmes Road (London) RTM Co Ltd

[2020] UKUT 0228 (LC)

and Assethold v. 15 Greyhound Land RTM Company Limited (2021) LON/00AY/LRM/2021/0004).

[13]Mr Brown also relied on the written expert report of Mr Selwyn Michael Langley FRICS ACI ARB of Martin Selwyn Surveyors dated 31 January 2025 in which he concluded: ‘The blocks are immediately adjoining each other and also appear to have some structural linkage.’

[14]Mr Brown also relied on the oral evidence of Ms Tara Taylor, the respondent’s in-house solicitor who spoke to her witness statement dated 15 July 2005 which largely detailed the failed attempts to arrange a joint meeting between the parties’ experts. In submission Mr Brown challenged the weight and credibility of the applicant’s witnesses as the witness evidence of Mr Shahad Choudhury appeared on its face to be little but bald assertions and could not be tested by cross examination and therefore should be given little if any weight.

[15]Mr Brown also submitted that the expert evidence of Mr Howse should be excluded in view of the absence of the usual declaration but if admitted it should be given little if any weight in the light of the failure to comply with the formal requirements as to its content. However, if admitted it is be noted when weighing his evidence that:a. It makes no clear reference to the admitted “minimal attachment” between the properties; and

b. It does not provide any basis for the conclusion that there is no interconnection in terms of facilities.

[16]Mr Brown submitted that when taken as a whole the evidence tendered and relied upon by the applicant was insufficient to discharge the burden of proving that the Property qualifies and the applicant is entitled to acquire the right to manage. The tribunal’s decisions and reasons

[17]The tribunal finds the Property is a structurally detached building and the applicant has the right to acquire the right to manage three months after this decision becomes final.

[18]The tribunal preferred the written and oral evidence of Mr Howse to the report of Mr Langley. The tribunal accepted Mr Howse’s explanation that the applicant had not instructed him as an ‘expert’ witness. Had it done so he would have included the usual declarations in his report. The tribunal found Mr Selwyn’s report to be very basic with a conclusion simply based on the fact there appeared to be (structural) ties between the Property and the building next door without any real explanation for this conclusion. Mr Selwyn however, appeared in his report to give little thought as to why these ties might be structural in nature in view of the unequivocal evidence the Property was built after the building it now adjoined.

[19]The tribunal also accepted that the elements covering the ‘gap’ between the Property and the adjoining property were a ‘flashing detail’ and largely decorative in nature only as demonstrated by the gaps that were evident in the photographs provided to the tribunal.

[20]The tribunal found the applicant’s addition of two ‘reference’ witnesses who adopted the statement of Mr Choudhary was bizarre and added nothing to the applicant’s case. Notwithstanding this approach to the evidence, the tribunal was satisfied the applicant had with the evidence of Mr Howse, met the burden of proof and was entitled to acquire the right to manage the Property. This right to manage will take effect no later than three months after the date this decision becomes final. Name: Judge Tagliavini Dated: 21 August 2025 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 should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-application-for-permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber 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).