A landmark Supreme Court ruling has brought clarity to the complex laws surrounding the Right to Manage (RTM) for leaseholders, following the dismissal of an appeal by an intermediate landlord in the case of A1 Properties v Tudor Studios. This decision marks a significant shift in how procedural errors in RTM claims are handled, ensuring that minor mistakes do not automatically invalidate the transfer of management rights.
Supreme Court supports tenant rights over procedural missteps
The case centred on a dispute where A1 Properties, an intermediate landlord with no management role, was not served with an RTM claim notice by Tudor Studios Management Company Limited due to an inadvertent omission. A1 Properties appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the failure to serve the notice invalidated the transfer of management rights. However, in a judgment handed down on 16 August, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, siding with arguments presented by the Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners (ALEP).
The Supreme Court’s decision partly overrules previous guidance from the Court of Appeal in the 2015 case of Natt v Osman. The ruling emphasised that landlords should not be given undue opportunities to obstruct the transfer of the right to manage, especially when they have not been significantly affected by minor procedural errors. The court stated that requiring RTM companies to restart the process due to such errors would undermine tenants’ ability to address management issues as intended by Parliament.
ALEP’s critical role in landmark decision
ALEP, a not-for-profit organisation representing leasehold enfranchisement professionals, played a crucial role in this case. The Supreme Court took the unusual step of allowing ALEP to make oral submissions, with Lord Justice Briggs acknowledging the “scholarly and helpful intervention” provided by ALEP. This intervention was particularly timely given the recent implementation of the 2024 Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act and the ongoing drafting of the new Labour government’s Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill.
Mark Chick, Partner at Bishop & Sewell LLP and a director of ALEP, who acted pro bono in the case, commented, “The law relating to notices continues to cause difficulty, particularly where mandatory procedures laid down by Parliament are not followed. The case of A1 v Tudor provides a thorough review of the law in this area and provides greater clarity in that the courts will now look to the consequences of any non-compliance, and in particular the extent of the prejudice to any party affected by that non-compliance.”
Clarity for professionals and leaseholders alike
The ruling is expected to simplify the work of enfranchisement and RTM professionals, as well as provide reassurance to leaseholders seeking to exercise their right to manage. Mark Loveday, barrister at Tanfield Chambers, noted, “This is a significant decision which simplifies the work of enfranchisement and RTM professionals and their clients. ALEP’s intervention was timely.”
John Midgley, Partner at Seddons Solicitors and a director of ALEP, added, “This decision provides clarity and will be welcomed by advisors looking to serve notices in what can be big and complex exercises where the scope for procedural errors exists.”
This Supreme Court judgment is a pivotal moment in property law, ensuring that the focus remains on the substance of RTM claims rather than procedural technicalities, ultimately benefiting leaseholders and RTM companies across the UK.
