 |
 |
Canonbury Management
One Carey Lane
London
EC2V 8AE
Sales: +44 (0)207 1188 400
Client Executive: +44 (0)207 1188 100
Report a Problem: +44 (0)207 1188 500
Billing Enquiries: +44 (0)207 1188 900
Fax: +44 (0)871 750 2688
mail@canonburymanagement.co.uk
Canonbury Management is a trading name of Investment Technology Limited
|
|
 |
Right To Manage Case Studies
|
Canonbury Management have performed hundreds of RTM claims and have a wealth of experience in the process. Whilst the majority of cases
progress without the freeholder serving a counter notice, some require that an application is made to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for determination. Listed below is a sample of cases
where Canonbury has applied to the LVT. These case studies and all RTM LVT applications are also available through the Residential Property Tribunal Service website.
Cann Hall Road
| Counter notice reasons |
The freeholder raised various issues to do with the description of the property, the form of the legal notices and the dates on which they were received.
|
| Judgement |
The Freeholder's objections were found to be without grounds and Canonbury's documents were affirmed as being accurate. |
|
Boutflower Road
| Counter notice reasons |
The Freeholder wrongly believed that the ownership of the freehold was split when it was clear from the land registry that it was not.
|
| Judgement |
The LVT agreed with our assessment of the situation and approved the Right to Manage. |
|
175 Dartmouth Road
| Counter notice reasons |
The freeholder raised various Objections and stated that they had not received the claim notice served upon them.
|
| Judgement |
The Freeholder withdrew their objections at the eleventh hour. |
|
67 Chadwick Road
| Counter notice reasons |
The freeholder stated that they had not received the claim notice served upon them but had not served a counter notice.
|
| Judgement |
The Tribunal decided that in the absence of such a counter notice having been served, the RTM Company had acquired the Right to Manage and the LVT had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. |
|
17 Churchfield Road
| Counter notice reasons |
The solicitor acting for the freeholder had said that the wife of a lessee not included on the register had to be given a notice of invitation.
|
| Judgement |
In this case, the wife of the lessee, was not served although her husband was with a notice inviting membership. It was held, however, that clearly she had agreed to become a member and so was not required to be so served under the act. The tribunal was critical of Chevalier for bring the claim and Canonbury was successful. |
|
417 Wick Lane
| Counter notice reasons |
The Freeholder had claimed that there were insufficient flats in the block.
|
| Judgement |
Canonbury was successful in this claim. There was a majority and the process had been correctly complied with. |
|
Devonshire House
| Counter notice reasons |
Simon Serota of Wallace and Co tried to argue that the statutory register was deficient and that column headings were not accurate in that document.
|
| Judgement |
The LVT determined that Canonbury's process was correctly undertaken and the client was granted the right to manage. |
|
12 Godman Road
| Counter notice reasons |
Eagerstates contested whether the building qualified for the right to manage.
|
| Judgement |
The LVT agreed with Canonbury that the building did qualify and the client achieved the right to manage. |
|
|
|