Douglas Court, 30 Douglas Avenue
- The building
- A block of four self-contained flats with common parts. Every leaseholder is also a joint freeholder, and no separate management company was ever incorporated.
- What was applied for
- A determination of entitlement to acquire the right to manage under section 84(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
- The figures
- Four flats, four owners, three of them RTM members. Claim notice 13 January 2025, found given 14 January. Acquisition date 15 May 2025.
What Happened
A first claim notice contained errors and was replaced by a revised one. One leaseholder, who was not a member, served a counter-notice arguing that the earlier collective enfranchisement overrode the right to manage, that the leases required unanimity, that the directors lacked the necessary skill, and that the reply date given was less than a month after service.
What the Tribunal Held
Entitled. The reply date was indeed wrong, the notice having been given on 14 January 2025 so that the earliest permissible date was 14 February, but applying the Supreme Court in A1 Properties the tribunal held the question is not whether the notice is technically valid but whether the failure invalidates the transfer of the right to manage. It held that any collective enfranchisement precedes, and does not supersede, a right to manage claim, and that any clause purporting to disapply the Act would be void. The judge cautioned against withholding a counter-notice in the hope an inaccuracy proves fatal.
What it means for a block here. A leaseholder-owned freehold that has always decided things unanimously does not block a majority from taking the right to manage, and after A1 Properties a wrong date in the claim notice will not defeat a claim without real prejudice.