The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) dismissed a freeholder's appeal, holding that two companies could acquire the right to manage their Liverpool buildings, because their earlier notices were not claim notices.
Key facts
- Who: Leaseholders and freeholders involved in right to manage claims, and companies set up to acquire the right to manage.
- From: Judgment of 8 July 2026
- Source: Better Intelligent Management Ltd v Phoenix Place Block A RTM Company Ltd & Anor [2026] UKUT 257 (LC)
Martin Rodger KC, Deputy Chamber President, decided the appeal in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on 8 July 2026. It concerned the statutory right to manage under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (the 2002 Act). The case number is LC-2025-739.
Background
The freeholder, Better Intelligent Management Limited, owns two self-contained buildings, Block A and Block B at Phoenix Place, 5 Prince Edwin Street, Liverpool. Two companies, Phoenix Place Block A RTM Company Limited and Phoenix Place Block B RTM Company Limited, gave notices under section 79 of the 2002 Act.
Chapter 1 does not apply to premises made up of more than one self-contained building. Companies whose objects are to acquire the right to manage two blocks are not RTM companies. The two companies were not RTM companies until they amended their articles of association on 22 October 2024. They then served second claim notices.
On 10 September 2025 the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decided that each company was entitled to acquire the right to manage one of the buildings.
The question
The freeholder argued that the First-tier Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the effect of the first notices, because no application had been made to it about them within the time allowed by the statutory scheme. It also argued that the first notices were still operative when the second notices were given.
The decision
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It confirmed the First-tier Tribunal's decision that the companies are entitled to acquire the right to manage.
The reasoning
The judge gave three reasons, including the following.
First, nothing the companies did before amending their articles on 22 October 2024 had legal effect for the purposes of the 2002 Act. A claim notice must be given by an RTM company (section 79(3)), and a notice given by a company that is not an RTM company is not a claim notice. The scheme gives no basis for treating such a notice as valid, with the effect of a valid notice, until it is found invalid.
The judge followed Poets Chase Freehold Co Ltd v Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 768, a case under a different Act, where a non-compliant notice was treated as having no legal effect. He did not accept that it mattered that the companies acknowledged the invalidity of the first notices only after serving the second.
Secondly, the First-tier Tribunal did have jurisdiction to decide the validity and effect of the first notices. Any court or tribunal may consider any question it needs to consider in order to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction to decide an issue before it.
What this means for leaseholders and freeholders
The ruling confirms that a notice given by a company that was not an RTM company is not a claim notice and does not have the consequences of one. It also confirms that a tribunal dealing with a right to manage application can consider the effect of earlier notices where it needs to do so to decide the matter before it.
Anyone involved in a right to manage claim may wish to check whether the company was an RTM company for the premises when each notice was given.
Sources
- Better Intelligent Management Ltd v Phoenix Place Block A RTM Company Ltd & Anor [2026] UKUT 257 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 8 July 2026