Better Intelligent Management Ltd v Phoenix Place Block A RTM Company Ltd & Anor

Under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, a purported claim notice given by a company that is not an RTM company has no statutory effect unless the statutory scheme provides otherwise. It does not remain in force to prevent a later claim under section 81(3). The FTT may decide a question necessary to determine its jurisdiction, including whether an earlier notice bars an application based on a later notice; a separate application based on the earlier notice is not required. An RTM company’s right extends to the whole self-contained building, including flats of non-participating tenants.

Better Intelligent Management Ltd owned the freehold of Blocks A and B at Phoenix Place. The respondent companies were formed to acquire the right to manage one block each, but their original articles described the premises as the postal address covering both blocks. They served first claim notices in August 2024. After the appellant challenged their entitlement, the companies amended their articles to identify a single block each and served second claim notices in November 2024.

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decided on 10 September 2025 that the respondents were entitled to acquire the right to manage. It held that the first notices had no legal effect because the companies were not then RTM companies. On appeal, the appellant argued that the FTT could not decide the effect of the first notices after the time to apply on those notices had expired, and that the respondents were estopped from denying their effect.

1. The appeal was dismissed and the FTT’s decision confirmed. The respondents were entitled to acquire the right to manage from the date three months after this decision became final.

2. Under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, a company is an RTM company only in relation to premises to which Chapter 1 applies. Those premises must be a single self-contained building or part. A notice given by a company that does not meet that requirement is not a claim notice under section 79(3). The Act contains no rule that gives such a notice interim effect pending a determination of its validity. The first notices therefore had no legal effect and did not engage the prohibition in section 81(3). The Tribunal relied on Avon Freeholds Ltd v Regent Court RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 213 (LC) and applied the reasoning in Poets Chase Freehold Co Ltd v Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 768 on the effect of a defective statutory notice.

3. A court or tribunal may satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction and consider questions necessary to do so. In proceedings on an application based on a second claim notice, the FTT had to decide whether the first notices remained in force, because that was the appellant’s objection under section 81(3). It was immaterial that the respondents had made no application relying on the first notices. The Tribunal applied In Jillas’ Application [2000] 2 EGLR 99 and treated R v Camden London Borough Rent Officer ex p Ebiri [1981] 1 WLR 881 as an illustration of the jurisdictional principle.

4. The estoppel argument failed. The appellant had not shown that it was misled or believed the first notices to be valid; it had asserted in its own counter-notices that they were invalid.

5. The Tribunal added that the right to manage extends to the whole self-contained building, not only flats belonging to participating tenants. That clarification was not necessary to decide the appeal.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) Dismissed the appeal and confirmed the respondents’ entitlement to acquire the right to manage.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) On 10 September 2025, determined that the respondents were entitled to acquire the right to manage. A citation for that decision is not stated in the judgment.