Case No. UKUT-26-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Numbers:-LC-2022-346

). Mr Heald concluded that the Property, in terms of its relationship with Number 38 (and thus with the remainder of the Terrace) satisfied the Division Criteria. Mr Procter, by contrast, concerned himself with the relationship between the Parts. Mr Procter concluded that each of the Parts, in terms of its relationship with the other Part, satisfied the Division Criteria.27.At the hearing counsel on both sides sensibly conceded that the conclusions of the expert on the other side should be accepted. This effectively disposed of the second issue I have identified above. I am therefore able to proceed on the basis that each of the Property, the Western Part and the Eastern Part satisfy the Division Criteria. I should also mention that there has been and is no suggestion that any of the exceptions in Schedule 6 would apply either to the Property, or to the Western Part, or to the Eastern Part.28.If therefore the FTT Decision does fall to be set aside, this leaves only the third issue, which is whether the Property can constitute a set of Qualifying Premises, and thus be the subject of an RTM claim, in circumstances where the Western Part and the Eastern Part also each constitute a set of Qualifying Premises. I will refer to this third issue as