Gaining the Right to Manage

Priory Court was managed by an agent appointed by the Freeholder. In actual fact, the managing agent and freeholder were under the same ownership. The managing agents were regarded as competent but unresponsive to the wishes of the leaseholders.

The leaseholders wished to have more of a say in the day to day management of the estate and to be able to control expenditure. Common Ground was appointed to assist the leaseholders to both obtain the right to manage and then subsequently manage the estate.

The leaseholders wished to have more of a say in the day to day management of the estate and to be able to control expenditure. Common Ground was appointed to assist the leaseholders to both obtain the right to manage and then subsequently manage the estate.

The right to manage legislation treats individual buildings as single entities even if there are several buildings within a development. The estate at Priory Court is a mixed development of 15 flats and 4 freehold properties. The 4 Freehold properties were not able to participate in the right to manage application as it only applies to leasehold properties – even though the freehold properties had an interest in the estate by virtue of owning car parking spaces within the communal car park.
Common Ground made an application for the right to manage to include “appurtenant property”, in this case the car park shared by both the leasehold and freehold properties. Whilst this was not a requirement at that time, subsequent case law has vindicated this all-encompassing approach.

Specifically, the case of Gala Unity vs Ariadne RTM Company Limited, where a single block (of a total of 10 on an estate) was granted the “right to manage” inclusive of the appurtenant land shared with the other 9 blocks.

Unbelievably, this (incorrect) decision was upheld in another case, Settlers Court RTM vs FirstPort. This verdict was appealed at the Supreme Court and overturned in January 2022

The Supreme Court found that the right to manage does not extend to the RTM company managing the shared estate facilities, which do not form part of the “premises” over which the RTM is exercisable. Gala Unity is now overruled.

The freeholder contested the application on the basis of the site being a mixed development, however, Common Ground successfully argued that the leasehold properties held the majority of the interest in the site and the right to manage was granted inclusive of appurtenant property.

Common Ground holds regular meetings with leaseholders and directors of the right to manage company. The directors have 24/7 access to the financial information at Priory Court through Common Ground’s unique online accounts system. Read more about Common Ground’s approach to financial management.