Gunes Ata v Susan Sinclair

A notice under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 must tell the landlord the matters of which the tenant complains. The required degree of detail is fact-specific. A notice is sufficient where it alerts the landlord to the relevant breaches and the landlord already knows the nature of the complaints.

The reasonableness of a period allowed for remediation also depends on all the circumstances. A landlord who does nothing during the notice period and the longer period before the application cannot rely on inadequate time without showing that it was impossible to take remedial action. An undeveloped assertion of a manager’s potential conflict does not require detailed treatment or prevent appointment.

The respondent, a long leaseholder of a flat at St Mary’s House, served a section 22 notice with other leaseholders and applied for the appointment of a manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The First-tier Tribunal found breaches of management obligations, concluded that appointment was just and convenient, and appointed the proposed manager for three years.

The freeholder appealed. He challenged the adequacy of the notice’s particulars of disrepair and infestation, the 14-day period for remediation, and the proposed manager’s alleged conflict as a director of the letting agent used by many leaseholders. There was no appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s core findings on poor management or that appointment was just and convenient.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal had correctly upheld the section 22 notice and was entitled to appoint the proposed manager.

2. The purpose of section 22(2)(c) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 is to inform the landlord of the matters relied on to establish the statutory grounds. The statute prescribes no fixed level of particularity. The question is whether the notice states what the landlord needs to know in the circumstances. Although the references to disrepair and infestation appeared under an invalidly framed ground, they plainly related to the alleged breaches of the landlord’s repairing and maintenance obligations. The appellant had long known the nature of those complaints and had not contended below that he was surprised or unable to understand them. The notice was therefore valid.

3. The reasonable period required by section 22(2)(d) is also fact-specific. It depends both on the proposed remedial work and the parties’ conduct. Fourteen days was sufficient to contact a pest-control contractor. More importantly, the appellant did nothing about either infestation or disrepair during the notice period, the further period before the application, or for months afterwards. He had not shown that action was impossible. The First-tier Tribunal’s reference to absence of detriment was imperfectly expressed, but its conclusion was correct.

4. A1 Properties (Sunderland) Limited v Tudor Studios RTM Company Limited [2024] UKSC 27 did not alter that result. It concerned the consequences of a procedural failure. Since this notice was compliant, the issue did not arise. In any event, if there had been a deficiency, the Tribunal would have exercised its discretion under section 24(7) to remake the appointment order because the statutory gateway and the just-and-convenient requirement were plainly met.

5. The alleged conflict of interest was a brief, unexplained assertion below. The First-tier Tribunal was aware of it and found the proposed manager experienced and suitable. In the absence of any developed example of an actual or material potential conflict, it was not required to give fuller reasons and the point afforded no basis to refuse the appointment.

6. The parties were directed to agree the terms of the management order; failing agreement, the Upper Tribunal would determine them on written representations.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Dismissed the freeholder’s appeal and upheld the appointment of a manager: [2024] UKUT 423 (LC).
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): Appointed a manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 for three years. No citation was stated in the judgment.