Error message

Tenants seeking to exercise the right to manage will welcome the Court of Appeal’s recent decision on procedural non-compliance, says Winston Jacob

The primary objective of the right to manage legislation is to enable an RTM company, simply and cheaply, to acquire the right to manage, and to avoid both duplication of effort and administrative untidiness once it has been acquired.
Where an RTM company has failed to comply with the statutory notice requirements, the court’s focus must be on whether Parliament intended that a landlord (or other person entitled to serve a counter-notice) could successfully contend that the defect in the relevant notice was fatal to its validity.
A failure by an RTM company to comply precisely with the requirements for a notice of intention to participate does not automatically invalidate all subsequent steps.

Many statutes lay down a procedure for the exercise or acquisition by a person or body of some right conferred by the statute without specifying the consequences of a failure to comply with the procedure. In such cases,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Error message

Tenants seeking to exercise the right to manage will welcome the Court of Appeal’s recent decision on procedural non-compliance, says Winston Jacob

The primary objective of the right to manage legislation is to enable an RTM company, simply and cheaply, to acquire the right to manage, and to avoid both duplication of effort and administrative untidiness once it has been acquired.
Where an RTM company has failed to comply with the statutory notice requirements, the court’s focus must be on whether Parliament intended that a landlord (or other person entitled to serve a counter-notice) could successfully contend that the defect in the relevant notice was fatal to its validity.
A failure by an RTM company to comply precisely with the requirements for a notice of intention to participate does not automatically invalidate all subsequent steps.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders

Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners

NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do

A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent

Your magistrates’ court needs you!

Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process

NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed

Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’

NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits

A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’