Assethold Limited vs 429 New Cross Road RTM Company Limited

This case concerned an appeal from a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) regarding the right to manage a property and the procedural requirements for serving notices under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

TLDR:

• Assethold Limited appealed a decision allowing 429 New Cross Road RTM Company Limited to acquire the right to manage.
• The appeal focused on the correct address for service of withdrawal notices.
• The Upper Tribunal ruled in favor of Assethold Limited, emphasizing strict compliance with procedural requirements.

The appellant, Assethold Limited, is the freeholder of the property at 429 New Cross Road, London. The respondent, 429 New Cross Road RTM Company Limited, sought to acquire the right to manage the property under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The dispute arose over the procedural requirements for serving notices, particularly the address for service.

On 8 August 2022, the RTM company served a claim notice on Assethold Limited, which responded with a counter-notice on 14 September 2022. The counter-notice specified an address for future communications. The RTM company subsequently served a second claim notice on 26 April 2023, withdrawing the first claim notice. However, the withdrawal notice was sent to the landlord's registered office, not the address specified in the counter-notice.

Assethold Limited challenged the validity of the second claim notice, arguing that the first notice had not been properly withdrawn. The First-tier Tribunal ruled in favor of the RTM company, but Assethold Limited appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

The Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke determined that the RTM company had not complied with the procedural requirements for serving the withdrawal notice. The judge emphasized that the address specified in the counter-notice must be used for all future communications related to the notice.

The Tribunal found that the RTM company's failure to use the correct address rendered the withdrawal notice invalid. Consequently, the first claim notice remained in effect, and the second claim notice was premature and ineffective.

The decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Tribunal's ruling provides valuable guidance for property lawyers dealing with right to manage claims.

Legal representatives: Scott Cohen Solicitors Limited for the appellant, AM Surveying and Block Management for the respondent.

Judicial Panel: Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke

Case Citation Reference: [2024] UKUT 113 (LC)