Interface Properties Limited v 307 Barking Road Rtm Company Limited

For the purposes of paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, an area is part of a building’s internal floor area only if it has a floor. Paragraph 1(4) deems existing floors to extend without interruption throughout the interior, but does not deem a floor to exist where there is none.

Usefulness, potential future use and the landlord’s present legal access are not additional statutory criteria. A roof void without a floor is therefore excluded from the calculation, even if it could later be adapted for storage. The Tribunal left open whether physical inaccessibility may itself be relevant where access requires alteration to the building.

The appellant freeholder challenged the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the respondent RTM company was entitled to acquire the right to manage a mixed-use building containing commercial premises, flats and two roof voids.

The parties agreed that, if both roof voids were included as non-residential internal floor area, that area would exceed 25 per cent of the premises and the statutory right to manage would not apply. If either void were excluded, the RTM company succeeded. The First-tier Tribunal held that the voids were unusable and inaccessible dead space. The appeal concerned the meaning of “internal floor area” in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal reached the correct result, although its reasoning was not wholly correct. Neither roof void formed part of the internal floor area of the premises, so the respondent was entitled to acquire the right to manage.

2. Paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 6 requires a physical floor as the minimum condition for inclusion in internal floor area. A floor is a continuous surface, such as an earth cellar floor or boards over joists. The upper surface of the flat ceiling between exposed joists in the right-hand void was not a floor. There was no evidence that the inaccessible left-hand void had a floor.

3. The provision is a deeming provision, but it treats a floor that exists as extending without interruption throughout the interior. It addresses interruptions such as non-structural partitions and may cover a floor temporarily removed for repair. It does not include a space which has no floor at the relevant time, even if a floor could be installed later or development is contemplated.

4. The statutory language does not impose a separate requirement of present or potential usefulness. Nor does it make the landlord’s absence of legal access decisive. The Tribunal therefore rejected the First-tier Tribunal’s reliance on accessibility and potential use as decisive criteria. It left open whether complete physical inaccessibility, where access could be obtained only by altering the building, may be relevant in another case.

5. The First-tier Tribunal’s conclusion and costs order remained undisturbed. The acquisition date was corrected from 23 November 2023 to 24 July 2023.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the freeholder’s appeal and upheld the respondent’s entitlement to acquire the right to manage, on different reasoning: [2024] UKUT 383 (LC).
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): held that the respondent could acquire the right to manage under FTT reference LON/00BB/LRM/2023/0043.