Home Page > Monthly Update > Long leases.

Home Page
Editorial Team

Boundaries and adverse possession.
Business lease renewal.
Co-ownership and estoppel.
Landlord and tenant (general).
Long leases.
Mobile homes.
Nuisance and trespass.
Property litigation and ADR.
Property transactions.
Public access to land.
Residential tenancies.
Restrictive covenants.

Current page

Long leases.

The editors of this section are Piers Harrison, barrister (enfranchisement) and Jonathan Upton, barrister (service charges), assisted by Harriet Holmes, Richard Alford, Katie Gray and Diane Doliveux all of Tanfield Chambers London.

There are three cases this month:
  • Consideration of whether there had been a failure to comply with various statutory procedural provisions in relation to the right to manage
  • Determination of the relevant date for the purposes of an application under section 48(2) of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993
  • Correct approach when ascertaining the ''appropriate day'' for calculating the rateable value of a house
Right to Manage

Substantial compliance

Elim Court RTM v Avon Freeholds Ltd
[2017] EWCA Civ 89


In five conjoined appeals the Court of Appeal considered whether there had been a failure to comply with the statutory procedural provisions and the consequences that followed.


The facts of each case were slightly different but together they raised the following issues:

Whether a notice inviting participation is required by s78(5)(b) of the 2002 Act to inform non-participating tenants that the RTM company's articles of association are available for inspection on 3 days at least one of which must be a Saturday or Sunday. If so, whether the consequence of non-compliance with the requirement is fatal.
Whether the disputed claim notices purported to be signed by a company and, if they did, whether that signature was ineffective for failing to comply with s44 of the Companies Act 2006. If so, whether the notice was nonetheless a good notice.
Whether the claim notice (at Elim Court) was served on the intermediate landlord. If not, whether service on the intermediate landlord was required. If it was, whether the failure to serve the intermediate landlord was fatal.

Decision of the Upper Tribunal

(1) The notice failed to comply with the statutory provisions and this was fatal. It was an important part of the statutory scheme that the ... THIS IS AN EXTRACT OF THE FULL TEXT. TO GET THE FULL TEXT, SEE BELOW

Existing members, to login click => here
If you have found this page useful, you may be interested in the following:

Free Summaries £nil
Full Membership From £207 + VAT (1 year)