12 & 14 Abercorn Place, London NW8 9XP First and second LON/00BK/LAM/2025/0003

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No LON/00BK/LAM/2025/0003
Between
Laurence Lecacheur Xavier LecacheurApplicantLonestar Properties LimitedRespondent
Before
Judge DaleyMr. S Mason FRICS–ProfessionalMemberIn person for the ApplicantDate 22 December 2025Hearing London WC1E 7LR, and on 23Property: 9XPType of application: Appointment of Manager Judge Daley
[1]In accordance with section 24(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 [Ms Tsvetkova of [EKOR Property Management Limited] (‘the Manager’) is appointed as manager of the property at [12 & 14 Abercorn Place, London NW8 9XP ("the Property’). 2[2]The order shall continue for a period of 3 years from [ the date of this decision]. Any application for an extension must be made prior to the expiry of that period. If such an application is made in time, then the appointment will continue until that application has been finally determined.[3]The Manager shall manage the Property in accordance with:(a) The directions and schedule of functions and services attached to this order;(b) The respective obligations of the landlord and the leases by which the flats at the Property are demised by the Respondent and in particular with regard to repair, decoration, provision of services and insurance of the Property; and(c) The duties of a manager set out in the Service Charge Residential Management Code (‘the Code’) or such other replacement code published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and approved by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 87 Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.[4]The Manager shall register the order against the landlord’s registered title as a restriction under the Land Registration Act 2002, or any subsequent Act.[5]An order shall be made under section 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, that the Respondent’s costs before the Tribunal shall not be added to the service charges. Introduction[6]This is a decision on an application by the Applicants, Laurence Lecacheur and Xavier Lecacheur.[7]By an application dated 8 February 2025, made under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (‘the section 24 application’) the Applicants applied for an order appointing Ms Ralitsa Tsvetkova of EKOR Group as manager of the premises.[8]The freeholder (and the management company currently responsible for the management of the subject premises) is Lonestar Properties Limited a company owned by the leaseholders, with one share allocated to the leaseholder(s) of each flat.[9]The premises comprise two adjacent buildings which are part of a wider terrace of buildings which is in a conservation area, which has been divided into 5 flats.[10]On 27 June 2024 a Section 22 Notice was served. The notice alleged that the premises were in disrepair, in the notice it was alleged that the “Building known as 14A Abercorn Place is not kept in tenantable repair and condition: the last repairs and redecoration were completed in 3 2009. It is now in disrepair from roof to foundations and risk losing its listed building features and that unreasonable service charges had been levied.” It was also alleged that the managers did not comply with the RICs Service Charge Residential Management Code.[11]On 27 February 2025, this matter was case managed without a hearing. The application was set down for hearing on 27 June 2025.[12]On 15 April 2025, further directions were given, and the hearing date of 27 June 2025 was postponed. For the following reason-:
“The hearing date was set without reference to the parties’ availability. It appears that the proposed Manager and at least one of the Applicants is unable to attend the hearing.”
[13]The Tribunal was provided with a bundle and supplementary bundle of over 736 pages, much of which comprising detailed evidence of the history of the management of the premises which included a history of disagreements and antagonism between the parties. As such the Tribunal decided that given that the parties continue to have a relationship as leaseholders, there was little value in repeating or apportioning blame for these issues.[14]However, the disagreements have meant that both parties complain of a lack of management which has led to difficulty in agreeing and collecting the service charges and resulted in on-going disrepair at the premises. Against that background, the Applicants served a Section 22 notice on 27 June 2024, on the grounds that-:
“The Landlord is in breach of obligations owed to the tenants under Clauses 1, 2(22), 4 (2), 4(4), 4 (5) in 14A lease.2.2 Unreasonable service charges. The Landlord has made unreasonable service charges in breach of clause 2(6). In recent correspondence the Company Secretary sent information to Lonestar shareholders that may lead to additional unreasonable service charges. Breach of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985The Landlord is in breach of Sections 20, 21 and 222.4 Breach of RICS Code of practices approved by the Secretary of State under section 87 of the M1 Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. 2.4 Breach of RICS Code of practices approved by the Secretary of State under section 87 of the M1 Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 2.5 Breach of Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, updated in 2022 2.6 Breach of article 476 of the 2006 Company Act. 2.7 Other circumstances which make it just and convenient to appoint a manager...”
[15]The Application sought an order appointing Ms Ralitsa Tsvetkova as manager of the property at 12 & 14 Abercorn Place London NW8 9XP, under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (the “Act”) 4 The issues[16]The issues for the Tribunal to determine are-:Whether the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has established any of grounds specified in section 24(2) of the 1987 Act for making an order; (ii) whether it is just and convenient to make an order in all the circumstances of the case; (iii) whether the proposed manager is a suitable appointee; and if an appoint(iv)the terms and duration of any appointment. The Law[17]Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act provides:(1) The appropriate tribunal may, on an application for an order under this section, by order (whether interlocutory or final) appoint a manager to carry out in relation to any premises to which this Part applies— (a) such functions in connection with the management of the premises, or, (b) such functions of a receiver, or both, as the tribunal thinks fit.(2) The appropriate tribunal may only make an order under this section in the following circumstances, namely (a) where the tribunal is satisfied—(i) that any relevant person has failed to comply with any relevant provision of a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (codes of management practice), and (ii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case; (i) that any relevant person either is in breach of any obligation owed by him to the tenant under his tenancy and relating to the management of the premises in question or any part of them or (in the case of an obligation dependent on notice) would be in breach of any such obligation but for the fact that it has not been reasonably practicable for the tenant to give him the appropriate notice, and (ii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case. The Hearing[18]The hearing was held on the date given above, with the Tribunal adjourning the hearing for a deliberation. The hearing was attended by Mr & Mrs. Leacacheur the leaseholders of flat 14A (Building 14), and Mr. Silkin and Mrs. Burianova leaseholders of flat 12-1, 12-2, and 12-3 5 (Building 12 and 14) in their capacity as directors of the freehold company.[19]At the hearing the Tribunal asked about the layout of the building. Mrs. Leacacheur explained that she and her husband occupied the ground floor flat, above them was flat 14 , which was occupied by Ms. Choy, who was not a party to this application. The top floor was occupied by Mr. Silkin and Mrs. Burianova and that access to this part of the property was from building 12. The two adjacent properties had originally been terraced houses which were converted into flats.[20]The Tribunal heard from Mr. Silkin and Ms. Burianova that NoFlat 12 was converted into and occupied solely as a family house, which spread across into building 14. This top floor flat created an L shape which was only accessible from building 12.[21]Each of the leaseholders owned a share of the freehold company Lonestar Properties Limited.[22]The Tribunal was provided the following information about the structure of the leases. The Tribunal was told by Mr Leacacheur that the lease for No 14A, had three clauses that refer to number 12 in their lease. In Section (1) of the lease this clause specified that the Lessor occupied with the right in common with successors in title, the owners or occupiers of “the adjacent adjoining or contiguous flats No 12” The clause also specified the right to have free passage to services such as running water, gas electricals and telecom services etc.[23]Clause 2 sub clause 6, states that “At all times during the said term to pay the Lessor a forty-five percent (45%) part of the reasonable and proper costs incurred by the Lessor in the performance of its obligations under Clause 4 sub-clause (2) and (4) thereof ( in relation to Number 14)also provided that the service charge percentage was 45% of the expenses of both numbers 12 & 14 Abercorn Road. Mr. Leacacheur also referred to the nuisance clause, clause 4 (5) in which the tenant covenanted not to clause a nuisance to occupiers of both No 12 and No. 14.[24]He stated that this meant that both properties ‘fell to be managed together’ and as such the representatives of the respondent company could not just separate the premises so that No 12 could opt out of any management arrangements. The Breaches of the lease relied upon[25]Mr. Leacacheur submitted that the breaches of the lease which he was relying upon related to disrepair at the property.[26]In the grounds in support of his application he stated that-: Number 14 is not kept in tenantable repair and condition, with no significant repairs or redecoration having been undertaken since 2009. Both Number 12 and Number 14 are listed properties; the Respondent’s inaction in relation to its repairing obligations mean that Number 14 6 risks suffering permanent and irreparable damage to their listed features, and that the costs of repairing such features will increase exponentially and have to be borne by the leaseholders. In 2022 there was an approved budget of between £37,000 to £40,000, whereas now the condition of Number 14 has deteriorated to such an extent that the estimated costs for partial completion of the required works total over £120,000. The Applicants are further concerned as to whether there has been a diminution in the value of Number 14 due to the Respondent’s inactions regarding their repairing obligations of the building.”[27]The Applicants stated that they had served the notice as repairs had not been properly carried out to the front of the building of No. 14, and that although some decoration/painting had been undertaken since the notice was served, it was inadequate and the proposed arrangement to complete the work were not in keeping with the nature and character of the building. There was also a storage area (the former coal store) under their property which was being inadequately maintained, and water was leaking into it which was affecting the building.[28]Mr. Leacacheur told the Tribunal that no Section 20 Notice had been prepared or served, and that there was no information about the scope of the proposed work. As such, the applicants were concerned about the scope and adequacy of any work which the respondent was likely to undertake.[29]In response Mr Silkin referred to the lease, in clause 4 (4) which he stated required the Lessor to keep the premises in tenantable repair and condition. Mr. Silkin referred to the fact that the premises were occupied, and as such were in “tenantable repair”.[30]In her witness statement, at paragraph 9, Ms. Burianova stated as follows:
“... I have organised the urgent repairs for the front patio and the property wall at 14 AP. I paid £1395 from my personal account since Lonestar does not have a Reserve Fund. I have initiated the directors’ decision to proceed with the urgent repairs that have been completed to Lonestar’s satisfaction. The works were limited to the areas that could be reached without scaffolding. All the work has been coordinated by Lonestar. The condition of the property wall has been assessed during the repair, and no major concerns have been reported by the professional decorator. The decorator has produced the Observation Letter regarding the condition of the property wall as well as recommendations to reconsider the planting scheme of the front patio. The decorator also recommended to remove regularly the vegetation growth to prevent the cracks in the perimeter walls. In addition, it was recommended to reposition the flower bed away from the wall as the water collected in the flowerbed damages the wall.”
[31]The Tribunal was referred by Mr. Silkin to an email that he had received from Raymond Glynn dated 18 July 2025, in which he set out the scheme of work which he said needed to be undertaken. However, the Tribunal noted in the initial paragraph of the email that he qualified his statement, 7 by saying that he was a quantity surveyor, and as such qualified his opinion by saying that it was outside the scope of his expertise.[32]Mr. Silkin had also included a Plan for Lonestar Activities for 2025, which set out a plan for repairs and for dealing with other management plans for the premises.[33]The Respondent’s representatives submitted that the premises were not in disrepair and that there was a plan for undertaking redecoration within the premises and that given this there was no need for a manager to be appointed. Unreasonable Service Charge Demand[34]The Tribunal was invited to consider a Section 27A decision in relation to the service charges for the property which had been considered by the First-tier tribunal. In this decision, it had been determined that the occupiers of No. 14 had no legal obligation to contribute to the repairs of the roof of number 12. In paragraphs 19 & 20 of the Grounds the Applicants stated-: “19. The Respondent was found to have charged unreasonable service charges by Judge M Jones and Tribunal Member Mr. O Dowty MRICS in a decision dated the 5th of March 2024 in Case Reference LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0331. The service charges in this case related to costs of repairs to the Property; the Applicants’ Lease only obliges them to contribute to the cost of repairs incurred in relation to No. 14, as found by the Tribunal.[20]In that case the entire amount demanded and charged by the Respondent for the period from June 2022 to August 2022 was found to have been unreasonable, given that no or only nominal works were undertaken to Number 14, despite £11,696 having been demanded from the Applicants by the Respondent.”[35]Mr. Leacacheur told the Tribunal that in response, to the Tribunal’s decision the directors of the respondent company, had produced a document, outlining what was purported to be details of overpayments made by Mr. Silkin and Ms. Burianova in which it was now proposed that as they had spent monies on number 14 which was not payable, in applying this principle they would be seeking to recover these expenses. Mr. Leacacheur submitted that the demand which resulted in the FTT application and the threat to recover the sums spent by Mr. Silkin and Ms. Burianova amounted to unreasonable service charges.[36]Ms. Burianova told the tribunal that the Service Charges for 2015-22 were not served on the Applicants. She referred to the Tribunal decision which made it clear that the costs of some of the repairs for No. 14 were paid by the respondents at 12, and that this was not a requirement of the lease. She told the Tribunal that they had tried to negotiate with the applicants to recover some of the expenses which they considered were solely attributable to Noflat 14. Breach of the RICS Code 8[37]In the Applicant’s Skeleton Argument, they set out that “. The Respondent has failed to comply with part 2 Ethics including conflict of interests, sections 4.4, 4.10, 9.1, 9.3, 9.9, 12.2 of the said RICS Code, and also with section 7.6 “Service and administration charges” which states “You should not commit expenditure unless you have the funds available to cover the costs in full”.25. The Respondent, acting as Directors and Company Secretary, does not take ownership of the Freehold company annual reports and tenants’ accounts. He has resisted leaseholders’ requests for transparency regarding the accounts [pages 323-326 on 2022 accounts and pages 260 and 263 on 2023 accounts].26. The Respondent denied the Applicants’ request to ring fence tenants’ funds until July 2025. Only then the tenants’ funds for major repair works were credited to a separate Lonestar account at Barclays.”[38]Mr Silkin noted that prior to himself and his wife becoming directors, the property had been managed by Mrs Leacacheur and the property had always been managed informally. He submitted that the RICS code was designed for managing agents and that as the property was not managed by managing agents the code did not apply as their property had also been managed “a lot less formal” given this, his understanding was that the RICS code makes recommendations, and that for non-managing agents it did not state that they must comply with the code. Other Circumstances that make it just and convenient for a manager to be appointed[39]The Tribunal was also asked to consider making an order because there were other circumstances which made it just and convenient to appoint a manager. The Applicants told the Tribunal that there was a lack of professionals being appointed to undertake work; they referred to the fact that the Respondent had fallen out with the decorator, and the decorating had not been completed by Ms. Burianova. The Tribunal was told that although Ms. Choy, the tenant of 14 , had originally prepared the accounts, she did not want to do the accounts anymore and that alternative accountants had not been appointed until 2024. The Applicants also referred to the fact that the Respondent has not always been transparent about the work which had been carried out. As an example, they referred to the fact that they were unaware that work has been undertaken to NO. 12, to convert it into one family home rather than three flats. The Applicant also cited a lack of a general and professional relationship between the leaseholders.[40]In reply the Respondents told the Tribunal that there was no need to appoint a manager as repairs were about to be carried out and would have been done if the Applicants had not resisted the project. They had made it clear that they were not going to pay the service charges for the major work unless the respondents appointed an external manager. However, Mr. Silkin submitted that the RICS guidance only recommended appointing professionals. It was their view that it was a small property and as such they did not want a professional manager as 9 they were managing the property and were taking their responsibilities as directors very seriously.[41]The Tribunal informed the parties that its decision to hear from the proposed manager was “Without Prejudice” to any decision concerning whether the circumstances existed at the property for a tribunal appointed manager.[42]The Tribunal heard from the proposed manager. Ms Ralitsha Tsvetkova of EKOR Group - applicants' proposed manager[43]Ms Tsvetkova had provided a witness statement, she had also provided a management plan, a schedule of fees, Insurance particulars, her company customer complaints procedure, and the service charge arrears policy and the contractors guidelines.[44]She told the Tribunal that she had never been appointed to manage a property on behalf of the Tribunal.[45]In her evidence to the Tribunal she outlined how she had become involved in property management. She told the Tribunal that she had started to work for a company who undertook property management and her interest had grown from this. Ms Tsvetkova had then set up her property management company EKOR Group in 2019. She had set up this company with a view to her managing smaller blocks. Ms Tsvetkova told the Tribunal that the typical size property managed by her was a block of 4 units and that the largest was twenty units.[46]Ms Tsvetkova set out that although she had not been a tribunal appointed manager, she had managed a property when her appointment had occurred where there was a dispute between the freeholders and the leaseholder prior to them applying to the Tribunal, which had then led to her appointment by agreement.[47]She set out that she had experience with financial management, repairs and property maintenance including listed buildings, and serving and complying with the Section 20 procedure including selecting contractors. She also had experience with legal and compliance including building safety.[48]She was supported in running EKOR by one other full-time member of staff and 3 part-time staff members. She told us that both herself and Querida Simpson (her full-time member of staff) were currently studying for Level 3 of Leasehold Management ATPI a Property Institute national qualification.[49]She explained that training was a high priority for her and that she undertook 15 hours a year CPD. 10[50]Ms Tsvetkova told the tribunal that she also used professional services such as a surveyor for building inspections in relation to major works and that she used a company called Realty Law who undertook collection of service charge arrears up to bringing proceedings. She told the Tribunal that her colleague Querida Simpson would be carrying out many of the day-to-day responsibilities although she would have oversight.[51]In answer to Mr Silkin’s questions about her company accounts at, Company house, she accepted that the accounts produced showed that the company was making a loss. However, she denied that EKOR was “a loss-making business”. She told the Tribunal that when she started the business, it was just her and that she was charging £300 per unit, she then registered for VAT, however she did not pay corporation tax, in 2024, she had made £103, 70.31.This year (2025) her gross earnings had been £172,000 with £67,000 net profit. However, she accepted that the business had traded at a loss in 2019 and 2020, she had 5 buildings which she managed in 2019 and had not grown the portfolio in 2020 due to covid.[52]She currently managed 66 buildings, with 380 units, the average cost per unit was £400.00. She also charged separate fees for project management services, Ms Tsvetkova stated that she had not lost business through complaints or to other managing agents although some blocks had chosen to self-manage.[53]Ms Tsvetkova was asked about her management of a neighbouring property at 15 Clifton Villas, she told the Tribunal that it had been difficult to make progress as the company director of the freehold company had not relinquished the documentation or the previous service charges, and they had to take service charge recovery action against some of the leaseholders. However, she was pleased that although initially slow progress was being made.[54]Within the documentation provided, the Tribunal was referred to the Insurance, the complaints process for EKOR and the management plan for the building.[55]She also set out how she had been approached by Mr Leacacheur, and had sent him her management pack, and had inspected the building, and had also met with the respondents' representatives via a video call on 21 February 2025. She set out some of the issues which she considered would factor into managing the building and based on all the information, produced a management plan.[56]She explained that she understood that as a tribunal appointed manager, she would be accountable to the Tribunal and that there was an obligation to the Tribunal which overrode any individual loyalties to the Applicants who proposed her appointment. 11[57]Within the management plan Ms Tvetskova had sent out the plan for the first forty days of management of the premises which dealt with the transfer of management, and the day-to-day activities which would need to be undertaken in managing the property. Within the Schedule of fees were details of the charge which would be £540 per flat, together with the matters which were additional responsibilities over and above the routine management and the charges which this would entail. Ms Tvetskova confirmed that she was satisfied that she would be able to manage the premises. Closing submissions The Respondents closing submission[58]Mr. Silkin submitted that the only maintenance which was needed was to No. 14, and the standard was that set out in clause 4(1) tenantable repair and condition, However the premises known as 12 Abercorn were not part of the repairing covenant, and given there was no liability for any disrepair[59]Ms. Burianova told the Tribunal that No. 12 was their home, and that any appointment would limit their property rights and potentially their privacy. She submitted that no evidence had been provided of any unreasonable service charges, as the decision of the Tribunal hearing section 27A application had not found that the costs of the work to the roof were unreasonable. In respect of the potential service charges, she submitted that no actual service charges had been levied.[60]In respect of breach of covenant, the Respondent’s submitted that they were ready to take the repairs forward. They were ready to appoint a builder; the only disagreement had been that the applicants put forward their own surveyor and builder and had not agreed to pay the service charges. Mr. Silkin submitted that the respondent company managed the buildings well in a manner which was cost effective.[61]In respect of Ms. Tsvetkova, Mr. Silkin submitted that she was not ready to take on the management of the premises as property manager. He referred to her evidence in which she had submitted that she had 15 years' experience. However, it was clear that although she worked for a property company, she was not managing properties at that time, according to her evidence. He submitted that her evidence was not high on accuracy, and that this reflected on her integrity.[62]He reminded the Tribunal that although she had put herself forward, another person would be managing the property. In respect of No 14, refurbishment commenced in 2022. Delays had occurred because the applicant was not cooperating.[63]Mr. Silkin told the Tribunal that he had tried to negotiate with the Applicants for over three years and had met with the response that the 12 redecoration work needed to be delayed as the Applicants were unhappy about the cost.[64]Ms. Burianova told the Tribunal that No. 12 was their family home and that the appointment of a manager represented an interference in their lives. The appointment of a manager would not deliver value for money. Progress was being made, and no appointment was necessary. The Applicant’s Closing submissions[65]Mr. Leacacheur submitted that Ms. Tsvetkova was growing her business, and that she was the right person to manage this type of building. He submitted that many Property Management companies were not excited about managing small blocks of flats. She used professional tools of property management and was transparent and had good communication skills and would abide by the RICS Code of practice.[66]In respect of why both properties which made up the premises Nos. 12 and 14 should both be the subject of the order, he submitted that it should not be just No. 14, as the property is contiguous, the two buildings were conjoined there was a link between the buildings. It was important that both properties were managed in accordance with the leases. Whether Circumstances Exist for the appointment of a manager?[67]The Tribunal having heard from both parties then went on to consider whether circumstances existed at the premises which made it just and convenient to appoint a manager.[68]The Tribunal noted from the outset that there had been disagreements and a degree of animosity between the parties and that prior to Mr Silkin and Ms. Burianova undertaking the directorship of the company, the management had been undertaken by the Applicants, and that at all times the management had been informal, it noted that there was disagreement between the parties about the direction of the management and the plans for refurbishment of the building. The Tribunal decided that it could not usefully explore all the history which had occurred which had given rise to the dysfunction which led to the application to appoint a manager.[69]The Tribunal considered all the evidence in this case, which included a voluminous bundle and photographic evidence. It considered the grounds upon which the management order was sought. The Tribunal decision on breach of the lease[70]In respect of the breach of the lease, the grounds relied upon were that the landlord had not complied with the repairing covenant, which was found in clause 4(1) of the lease, which requires the landlord to -: 4(4) 13 During the said term to keep in tenantable repair and condition the roof, foundations, structural and outside walls, pathways, front stairs, gate and fences and perimeter wall, entrance doors and other outside partes of the building ( including the purpose built building for the storage of rubbish bins) known as 14 Abercorn Place...”[71]The Tribunal was not provided with any expert evidence on this point; however, it has considered the word “tenantable” which given its ordinary meaning is fit for occupation by a tenant. The Tribunal on the evidence before it was not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that that a breach of the covenant of the lease was made out. Whether unreasonable service charges had been demanded[72]The Tribunal went on to consider whether unreasonable service charges had been demanded. The Tribunal considered that there was a challenge to the payability of the service charges in respect of No. 14 before the Tribunal in Application No LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0331. On the issue of reasonableness of the service charges at paragraph 74 of the decision the Tribunal found that “ The Tribunal similarly does not find that the costs of such works as were carried out were unreasonable, again on the basis that it has insufficient evidence before it to determine the point, and where the works charged for did not relate to the Property in any event.”[73]The Tribunal noted that on the construction of the lease, the Tribunal in application LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0331 found that charges were not payable by the leaseholders of No. 14 for work carried out on No.12. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the sum for the work to the roof was not payable in the sum of £11,696.00. The Applicants sought to rely upon this as an unreasonable service charge demand. Additionally, the Applicants referred to sums which Ms Burianova had referred to as potentially recoverable for service charges paid by herself and her husband as unreasonable service charges.[74]The Tribunal considered whether these sums amounted to unreasonable service charges. The Tribunal noted that no finding had been made by the Tribunal in application LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0331 that the sums were unreasonably demanded. The Tribunal also noted that there was no demand in respect of any potential recovery of service charges paid by the leaseholders of No 12. The Tribunal in reaching its decision, reminded itself that no finding had been made that the service charges were unreasonable, and that no further service charges were demanded. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that this ground is not made out. Whether the RICS Code had been breached[75]The Tribunal next considered whether the RICS code applied? The Tribunal accepted the submission of Mr Silkin that the code applied to management by managing agents, and that the property had hitherto been managed informally, as such, the Tribunal find that there was no 14 expectation that the management was carried out in accordance with the code. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the code applies and accordingly finds no breach of the code. Whether other circumstances exist which make it just and convenient for an order to be made.[76]The Tribunal next considered whether other circumstances exist which make it just and convenient for an order to be made. The Tribunal noted that although there was an agreement that work should be undertaken, the relationship between the parties had broken down in such a manner as to make it unlikely that the parties would be able to move forward and take proactive steps to repair and manage the building in the interest of all parties.[77]The Tribunal also noted that the Directors of the freehold company, did not have a thorough understanding of the terms of the lease, and in this regard they had treated No 12, as if it was a freehold house, without taking steps to consult with the other owners of the freehold who have an interest in the premises.[78]The Tribunal accepted Mr Leacacheur submissions that the premises are contiguous and that part of the leased properties from No. 12 extends over No. 14, accordingly the Tribunal accepted that both buildings must be managed together.[79]The Tribunal made this decision in the full knowledge that this represents an interference with the rights of Ms Burianova and Mr Silkin who occupy the premises at No. 12 as a family home, however notwithstanding their rights, the property they occupy is a series of leased properties and they are not the sole owners of the freehold. Given this the Tribunal consider that it is just and convenient for the buildings to be managed in accordance with the lease for the appointment of a manager.[80]The Tribunal found that it was just and convenient to appoint a manager. Whether Ms Tsvetkova should be appointed to manage the property?[81]The Tribunal have considered the unique characteristics of the building it accepted that given the size the property needed a bespoke management system.[82]The Tribunal considered the evidence of Ms Tsvetkova; it noted that she did not have experience of having been appointed as a tribunal manager. It was satisfied that although she has not previously held a tribunal appointment, it found her evidence considered and measured. 15[83]It noted that she had visited the site and had spoken with the directors and had put in place proposals for the management of the property. The Tribunal considered her management plan which it found to be sufficiently detailed. It also considered that the current size of her management portfolio would allow her to focus on the management of the premises in accordance with the plan.[84]Accordingly, the Tribunal has decided to appoint Ms Tsvetkova for a three-year term. It has considered her fees which it finds to be proportionate and in keeping with the nature and character of the building. Name: Judge Daley Date: 27 November 2025 Amended 22.12.25 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 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). 16 DIRECTIONS[1]From the date of the appointment and throughout the appointment the Manager shall ensure that he has appropriate professional indemnity cover in the sum of at least £500,000 and shall provide copies of the current cover note upon a request being made by any lessee of the Property, the Respondent or the Tribunal.[2]That no later than 56 daysfour weeks after the date of this order the parties to this application shall provide all necessary information to and arrange with the Manager an orderly transfer of responsibilities. No later than this date, the Applicants and the Respondent shall transfer to the Manager all the accounts, books, records and funds (including, without limitation, any service charge reserve fund).[3]The rights and liabilities of the Respondent arising under any contracts of insurance, and/or any contract for the provision of any services to the Property shall upon 2010 December 20254 become rights and liabilities of the Manager.[4]The Manager shall account forthwith to the Respondent for the payment of ground rent received by him and shall apply the remaining amounts received by him (other than those representing his fees) in the performance of the Respondent’s covenants contained in the said leases.[5]The Manager shall be entitled to remuneration (which for the avoidance of doubt shall be recoverable as part of the service charges of leases of the Property) in accordance with the Schedule of Functions and Services attached.[6]By no later than [one year] from the date of the decision, the Manager shall prepare and submit a brief written report for the Tribunal on the progress of the management of the property up to that date, providing a copy to the lessees of the Property and the Respondent at the same time.[7]Within 5628 days of the conclusion of the management order, the Manager shall prepare and submit a brief written report for the Tribunal, on the progress and outcome of the management of the property up to that date, to include final closing accounts. The Manager shall also serve copies of the report and accounts on the lessor and lessees, who may raise queries on them within 14 days. The Manager shall answer such queries within a further 14 days. Thereafter, the Manager shall reimburse any unexpended monies to the paying parties or, if it be the case, to any new tribunal-appointed manager, or, in the case of dispute, as decided by the Tribunal upon application by any interested party.[8]The Manager shall be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for further directions. 17 SCHEDULE OF FUNCTIONS AND SERVICES Insurance(i) Maintain appropriate building insurance for the Property.(ii) Ensure that the Manager’s interest is noted on the insurance policy. Service charge (i) Prepare an annual service charge budget, administer the service charge and prepare and distribute appropriate service charge accounts to the lessees. (ii) [Set] Demand and collect [ground rents,] service charges (including contributions to a sinking fund), insurance premiums and any other payment due from the lessees.(iii) [Set] Demand and collect his own service charge payable by the Respondent (as if he were a lessee), in respect of any un-leased premises in the Property which are retained by the Respondent.(iv) Instruct solicitors to recover unpaid rents and service charges and any other monies due to the Respondent.(v) Place, supervise and administer contracts and check demands for payment of goods, services and equipment supplied for the benefit of the Property with the service charge budget. Accounts (i) Prepare and submit to the Respondent and lessees an annual statement of account detailing all monies received and expended. The accounts to be certified by an external auditor, if required by the Manager. (ii) Maintain efficient records and books of account which are open for inspection by the lessor and lessees. Upon request, produce for inspection, receipts or other evidence of expenditure. (iii) Maintain on trust an interest-bearing account/s at such bank or building society as the Manager shall from time to time decide, into which ground rent, service charge contributions and all other monies arising under the leases shall be paid. (iv) All monies collected will be accounted for in accordance with the accounts regulations as issued by the Royal Institution for Chartered Surveyors. Maintenance (i) Deal with routine repair and maintenance issues and instruct contractors to attend and rectify problems. Deal with all building maintenance relating to the services and structure of the Property. 18 (ii) The consideration of works to be carried out to the Property in the interest of good estate management and making the appropriate recommendations to the Respondent and the lessees. (iii) The setting up of a planned maintenance programme to allow for the periodic re-decoration and repair of the exterior and interior common parts of the Property. Fees (i) Fees for the abovementioned management services will be a basic fee of £540 (inclusive of VAT) s per unit annum. Those services to include the services set out in the Service Charge Residential Management Code published by the RICS. (ii) Major works carried out to the Property (where it is necessary to prepare a specification of works, obtain competitive tenders, serve relevant notices on lessees and supervising the works) will be subject to a charge of limited to the charges set out in her schedule of fees/ costs.[1]In this[2]In accordance with section 24(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (“the Act”) Ms Ralitsha Tsvetkova. Of EKOR Group is appointed as Manager of the Property.[3]The Manager’s appointment shall start on 274 November 2025 (“the start date”) and shall end on 263 November 2028 (“the end date”).[4]For the avoidance of doubt this Order supplements but does not displace covenants under the Leases and the Tenants remain bound by them. Where there is a conflict between the provisions of the Order and the Leases, the provisions of the Order take precedence.[5]The purpose of this Management Order is to provide for the management of the Property [which includes taking steps to resolve the following problems of inadequate management identified by the tribunal:] (a) Preparing a plan for undertaking work of redecoration and refurbishment of the property, in accordance with its status as a listed building.[6]To address the steps identified in the previous paragraph the Manager is empowered to: (a) Serve a Section 20 Notice and collect service charges and manage the property in accordance with the lease.[7]The Manager shall manage the Property in accordance with:(a) the terms of this Order and the Directions set out below; 3(b) the respective obligations of the Landlord and the Tenants under the Leases whereby the Property is demised by the Landlord (save where modified by this Order);(c) the duties of a Manager set out in the Service Charge Residential Management Code (“the Code”) (3rd Edition) or such other replacement code published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (“RICS”) and approved by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 87 Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993(whether the Manager is a Member of the RICS or not; and(d) the provisions of sections 18 to 30 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.[8]From the date this Order comes into effect, no other party shall be entitled to exercise a management function in respect of the Property where the same is the responsibility of the Manager under this Order.[9]The tribunal requires the Manager to act fairly and impartially in the performance of their functions under this Order and with the skill, care and diligence to be reasonably expected of a Manager experienced in carrying out work of a similar scope and complexity to that required for the performance of the said functions.[10]The Manager or any other interested person may apply to vary or discharge this Order pursuant to the provisions of section 24(9) of the Act.[11]The Tribunal may, upon receipt of information or notification of change of circumstances, issue directions to the parties, or any other interested person, concerning the operation of this Order, both during its term, and after its expiry.[12]Any application to extend or renew this Order must be made before the end date, preferably at least three months before that date, and supported by a brief report of the management of the Property during the period of the appointment. Where an application for an extension or renewal is made prior to the end date, then the Manager’s appointment will continue until that application has been finally determined.[13]The Manager is appointed to take all decisions about the management of the Property necessary to achieve the purposes of this Order. If the Manager is unable to decide what course to take, the Manager may apply to the Tribunal for further directions, in accordance with section 24(4), Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Circumstances in which a request for such directions may be appropriate include, but are not limited to:(a) a serious or persistent failure by any party to comply with an obligation imposed by this Order; 4(b) circumstances where there are insufficient sums held by the Manager to discharge their obligations under this Order and/or for the parties to pay the Manager’s remuneration; and(c) where the Manager is in doubt as to the proper construction and meaning of this Order. Contracts[14]Rights and liabilities arising under contracts, including any contract of insurance and/or any contract for the provision of any services to the Property, to which the Manager is not a party, but which are relevant to the management of the Property, shall upon the date of appointment become rights and liabilities of the Manager, save that:(a) the Landlord shall indemnify the Manager for any liabilities arising before commencement of this Order; and(b) the Manager has the right to decide, in their absolute discretion, the contracts in respect of which they will assume such rights and liabilities, with such decision to be communicated in writing to the relevant parties within 56 days from the date this order.[15]The Manager may place, supervise and administer contracts and check demands for payment of goods, services and equipment supplied for the benefit of the Property. pre-contract enquiries[16]The Manager shall be responsible for responding to pre-contract enquiries regarding the sale of a residential flat at the Property. Legal Proceedings[17]The Manager may bring or defend any court or tribunal proceedings relating to management of the Property (whether contractual or tortious) and, subject to the approval of the Tribunal, may continue to bring or defend proceedings relating to the appointment , after the end of their appointment.[18]Such entitlement includes bringing proceedings in respect of arrears of service charge [and rent] attributable to any of the Flats in the Property, including, where appropriate, proceedings before this tribunal under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and in respect of administration charges under schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 or under section 168(4) of that Act or before the courts and shall further include any appeal against any decision made in any such proceedings. 5[19]The Manager may instruct solicitors, counsel, and other professionals in seeking to bring or defend legal proceedings and is entitled to be reimbursed from the service charge account in respect of costs, disbursements or VAT reasonably incurred in doing so during, or after, this appointment. If costs paid from the service charge are subsequently recovered from another party, those costs must be refunded to the service charge account. Remuneration[20][The Landlord is responsible for payment of the Managers’ fees which are to be collected, in the first instance, from the Tenants under the service charge mechanisms of their Leases[21]The sums payable are:(a) an annual fee of [£540.00 inclusive of VAT] per flat for performing the duties set out in paragraph 3.4 of the RICS Code (so far as applicable);(b) any additional fees contained in a schedule to this Order for the duties set out in paragraph 3.5 of the RICS Code (so far as applicable); and(c) VAT on the above fees. Ground Rent and Service charge[22]The Manager shall not collect the ground rents payable under the residential Leases.[23]The Manager shall collect all service charges and insurance premium contributions payable under the Leases, in accordance with the terms and mechanisms in the Leases.[24]Whether or not the terms of any Lease so provides, the Manager shall have the authority to:(a) demand payments in advance and balancing payments at the end of the accounting year;(b) establish a sinking fund to meet the Landlord’s obligations under the Leases;(c) allocate credits of service charge due to Tenants at the end of the accounting year to the sinking fund;(d) alter the accounting year and to collect arrears of service charge and insurance that have accrued before their appointment; and 6[25]The Manager is entitled to recover through the service charge the reasonable cost and fees of any surveyors, architects, solicitors, counsel, and other professional persons or firms, incurred by them whilst carrying out their functions under the Order. Administration Charges[26]The Manager may recover administration charges from individual Tenants for their costs incurred in collecting ground rent, service charges and insurance which includes the costs of reminder letters, transfer of files to solicitors and letters before action. Such charges will be subject to legal requirements as set out in schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Details of the fees charged are set out in the Appendix of additional fees. Disputes[27]In the event of a dispute regarding the payability of any sum payable under this Order by the lessees, additional to those under the Leases (including as to the remuneration payable to the Manager and litigation costs incurred by the Manager), a Tenant, or the Manager, may apply to the tribunal seeking a determination under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as to whether the sum in dispute is payable and, if so, in what amount.[28]In the event of a dispute regarding the payability of any sum payable under this Order by the landlord, other than a payment under a Lease, the Manager or the Landlord may apply to the tribunal seeking a determination as to whether the sum in dispute is payable and, if so, in what amount.[29]In the event of dispute regarding the conduct of the management of the property by the Manager, any person interested may apply to the Tribunal to vary or discharge the order in accordance with section 24(9) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.[30]In the event of a dispute regarding the reimbursement of unexpended monies at the end of the Manager’s appointment, the Manager, a Tenant, or the Landlord may apply to the Tribunal for a determination as to what monies, if any, are payable, to whom, and in what amount. DIRECTIONS TO LANDLORD[31]The Landlord must comply with the terms of this Order.[32]On any disposition [other than a charge] of the Landlord’s estate in the Property, the Landlord will procure from the person to whom the Property is to be conveyed, a direct covenant with the Manager, that 7 the said person will(a) comply with the terms of this Order; and(b) on any future disposition (other than a charge) procure a direct covenant in the same terms from the person to whom the Property is to be conveyed.[33]The Landlord shall give all reasonable assistance and co-operation to the Manager in pursuance of their functions, rights, duties and powers under this Order, and shall not interfere or attempt to interfere with the exercise of any of the Manager’s said rights, duties or powers except by due process of law.[34]The Landlord is to allow the Manager and their employees and agents access to all parts of the Property and must provide keys, passwords, and any other documents or information necessary for the practical management of the Property in order that the Manager might conveniently perform their functions and duties, and exercise their powers under this Order.[35]Within 56 days from the date of this Order the Landlord must provide all necessary information to the Manager to provide for an orderly transfer of responsibilities, to include the transfer of:(a) all accounts, books and records relating to the Property, including a complete record of all unpaid service charges; and(b) all funds relating to the Property including uncommitted service charges and any monies standing to the credit of a reserve or sinking fund. DIRECTIONS TO MANAGER[36]The Manager must adhere to the terms of the Order above. Entry of a Form L restriction in the Register of the Landlord’s Registered Estate[37]To protect the direction in paragraph 36 for procurement by the Landlord, of a direct covenant with the Manager, the Manager must apply for the entry of the following restriction in the register of the Landlord’s estate under title set out above.no(s) [NGL850420-OC- 238]. “No disposition of the registered estate (other than a charge) by the proprietor of the registered estate, or by the proprietor of any registered charge, not being a charge registered before the entry of this restriction, is to be completed by registration without a certificate signed by the applicant for registration [or their conveyancer] that the provisions of paragraph 36 of an Order of the Tribunal dated 24.11.25 have been complied with” 8 Registration The Manager must make an application to HM Land Registry for entry of the restriction referred to in paragraph 41, within 14 days of the date of this Order.[38]A copy of the Order should accompany the application (unless it is submitted by a solicitor able to make the necessary declaration at Box 8(c) of the RX1 application form). The application should confirm that:• this is an Order made under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Part II (Appointment of Managers by a Tribunal) and that pursuant to section 24(8) of the 1987 Act, the Land Registration Act 2002 shall apply in relation to an Order made under this section as they apply in relation to an order appointing a receiver or sequestrator of land.• Consequently, pursuant to Rule 93(s) of the Land Registration Rules 2003, the Manager is a person regarded as having sufficient interest to apply for a restriction in standard Form L or N. Conflicts of Interest[39]The Manager must be astute to avoid any Conflict of Interest between their duties and obligations under this Order, and their contractual dealings. Where in doubt, the Manager should apply to the Tribunal for directions. Complaints[40]The Manager must operate a complaints procedure in accordance with, or substantially similar to, the requirements of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Insurance[41]The Manager must maintain appropriate building insurance for the Property and ensure that the Manager’s interest is noted on the insurance policy.[42]From the date of appointment, and throughout the appointment, the Manager must ensure that he/she has appropriate professional indemnity insurance cover in the sum of at least £500,0002 million (Five Hundred Thousand) and shall provide copies of the certificate of liability insurance to the Tribunal, and, upon request, to any Tenant or 9 the Landlord. The Certificate should specifically state that it applies to the duties of a Tribunal appointed Manager. Accounts[43]The Manager must:(a) prepare and submit to the Landlord and the Tenants an annual statement of account detailing all monies receivable, received and expended. The accounts are to be certified by the external auditor, if required under the Leases;(b) maintain efficient records and books of account and to produce for these for inspection, to include receipts or other evidence of expenditure, upon request by the Landlord or a Tenant under section 22 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985;(c) maintain on trust in an interest-bearing account at such bank or building society, as the Manager shall from time to time decide, into which ground rent, service charge contributions, Insurance Rent, and all other monies arising under the Leases shall be paid; and(d) hold all monies collected in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Repairs and maintenance[44]The Manager must:(a) by 56 days draw up a planned maintenance programme for the period of the appointment, allowing for the periodic re- decoration and repair of the exterior and interior common parts of the Property, as well as any roads, accessways, mechanical, electrical and other installations serving the Property, and shall send a copy to every Tenant and to the Landlord;(b) subject to receiving sufficient prior funds: (i) carry out all required repair and maintenance required at the Property, in accordance with the Landlord’s covenants in the Leases, including instructing contractors to attend and rectify problems, and is entitled to recover the cost of doing so as service charge payable under the Leases or in accordance with the Order. (ii) arrange and supervise any required major works to the Property, including preparing a specification of works and obtaining competitive tenders. 10(c) liaise with all relevant statutory bodies in the carrying out of their management functions under the Order; and(d) ensure that the Landlord, and the Tenants, are consulted on any planned and major works to the Property and to give proper regard to their views.[45]The Manager has the power to incur expenditure in respect of health and safety equipment reasonably required to comply with regulatory and statutory requirements. Reporting[46]By no later than six months from the date of appointment (and then annually) the Manager must prepare and submit a brief written report to the Tenants, and the Landlord, on the progress of the management of the Property up to that date, providing a copy to the Tribunal at the same time. End of Appointment[47]No later than 56 days before the end date, the Manager must:(a) apply to the tribunal for directions as to the disposal of any unexpended monies;(b) include with that application a brief written report on the progress and outcome of the management of the Property up to that date (a “Final Report”); and(c) seek a direction from the tribunal as to the mechanism for determining any unresolved disputes arising from the Manager’s term of appointment (whether through court or tribunal proceedings or otherwise).[48]Unless the tribunal directs otherwise the Manager must within two months of the end date:(a) prepare final closing accounts and send copies of the accounts and the Final Report to the Landlord and Tenants, who may raise queries on them within 14 days; and(b) answer any such queries within a further 14 days.[49]The Manager must reimburse any unexpended monies to the paying parties, or, if it be the case, to any new Tribunal appointed Manager within three months of the end date or, in the case of a dispute, as decided by the Tribunal upon an application by any interested party. 11 Schedule of Additional Fees Property management annual fee per flat: £540 incl. VAT Initial assessment fee: £96 incl. VAT per hour ADDITIONAL CHARGEABLE SERVICES Any additional hours required or where the information as listed in Appendix III & IV is not part of day-to-day management will be charged - £96 per hour Lease/ Land Register search - £24 per document Preparing information pack – LPE1 - £480 Share Certificates - £240 Pets’ approval - £240 Subletting approval - £240 Responding to re-mortgage/ charge enquiries - £240 Offering any vacant property in the building to be managed – EKOR fee (TBC) CAPEX plans discussions Copy of keys and sending to address HMO license to property High rise buildings registration assistance Party Wall correspondence Liaising with Complex Insurance claims above £10,000 Preparing reinstatement cost assessment for insurance valuation purposes on buildings and landlord contents - Surveyor Fees (TBC) Arrears procedure: First Service Charge Reminder after 7 days – Free Second Service Charge Reminder after 14 days - £96 Liaising with solicitors and client regarding service charge arrears Direct Debit payment by individual Leaseholder - £75 per annum Legal recovery of unpaid service charges or ground rents or action for non-compliance with leases including liaising and instructing solicitors and preparing for and attending Court/Tribunal or Court Attendance – EKOR fee/ Solicitors Fee (TBC) License to Alter – EKOR fee/ Solicitors Fee (TBC) Deed of Covenant – EKOR fee/ Solicitors Fee (TBC) Party wall matters – EKOR fee/ Surveyor Fees (TBC) Receipt of Notice of Charge – EKOR fee/ Solicitors Fee (TBC) Receipt of Notice of Transfer – EKOR fee/ Solicitors Fee (TBC) Receipt of Notice of Assignment – EKOR fee/ Solicitors Fee (TBC) Changes of use, lease extensions, Lease variations - Solicitors Fee (TBC) Request for improvement or building alterations by Leaseholders (To be paid by Individual Leaseholder – EKOR fee/ Solicitor’s fee (TBC) 12 Preparing schedules of dilapidation or condition in respect of individual dwellings – Surveyor Fees (TBC) Please let me know if you require any further details or documentation.

Order

“The Property” means the flats and other premises known as known as 12 & 14 Abercorn Place, London NW8 9XP.and registered at HM Land Registry under title number NGL8500420-OC-238 NGL346056 (for No 12 Abercorn Place) and NGL533318 (for No 14 Abercorn Place)and shall include [the building, outhouses, gardens, amenity space, drives, pathways landscaped areas, flower Formatted: Font colour: Red 2 beds, passages, bin-stores, common parts, storage rooms basements, electricity and power rooms; and all other parts of the property]. “The Landlord” shall mean Lonestar Properties Limited or their successors in title to the reversion immediately expectant upon the Leases. “The Tenants" shall mean the proprietors for the time being of the Leases whether as lessee or under-lessee and "Tenant” shall be construed accordingly. “The Leases" shall mean all leases and/or underleases of flats in the Property. “The Manager” means [Ms Ralitsha Tsvetkova.] “The Tribunal” means the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ORDER