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

). The decision does not apply to the RTM provisions in the 2002 Act. As such, it is not possible to make an RTM claim in respect of a part of a building which itself contains a constituent part or constituent parts which are themselves Qualifying Premises within the meaning of Section 72. In such a situation an RTM Claim can only be made in respect of each such individual constituent part. In the present case therefore an RTM claim could only be made in respect of each of the Parts, and in each case by a different RTM company. An RTM claim could not be made in respect of the Property, because the Property itself contains two sets of Qualifying Premises. 22.The RTM Company cross appeals against the FTT Decision on grounds which can be summarised as follows:(1)The FTT were right to decide that the Property comprises a single building, and thus a single set of Qualifying Premises.(2)If however the FTT were wrong in this decision, and the Property in fact comprises two sets of Qualifying Premises, this does not invalidate the RTM Claim. The decision in Craftrule does apply to the RTM provisions in the 2002 Act, with the consequence that the Property is itself capable of constituting a set of Qualifying Premises, notwithstanding that the Property also contains constituent parts each of which is a set of Qualifying Premises. 23.As I have said, permission for the appeal and cross appeal were granted by the Deputy President. The Deputy President also directed that the appeal and cross appeal should be heard by way of a review of the FTT Decision, with a view to a rehearing of the RTM Application if the FTT Decision was set aside. The Deputy President also gave further directions for the hearing of the appeal and cross appeal which included permission for each party to adduce the evidence of one witness, who might, but did not need to be an expert.24.Accordingly, the issues to be determined in the appeal and cross appeal were conveniently divided into three, as follows:(1)The first issue is the question of whether the FTT Decision should be set aside. If the answer to this question is that the FTT Decision stands, then both the appeal and cross appeal end there. If however the FTT Decision falls to be set aside, then the RTM Application falls to be reheard. On this latter hypothesis the second and third issues arise.(2)The second issue is a factual issue, and concerns the relationship between (i) the Property and the remainder of the Terrace, and (ii) the Western Part and the Eastern Part. The question is whether the division between the respective properties satisfies the Division Criteria in relation to (i) the Property, and (ii) each of the Parts.(3)The third issue is the question of statutory construction which has become central to the appeal and the cross appeal. If it is assumed that the division between the Property and the remainder of the Terrace satisfies the Division Criteria in relation to the Property, and if it is also assumed that the division between the Western Part and the Eastern Part satisfies the Division Criteria in relation to each of the Parts, is it open to the RTM Company to make an RTM claim in respect of the Property as a whole, or is the RTM Company confined to making separate RTM claims in relation to each of the Parts?25.The first and third issues remain in place, but by the time of this hearing, the second issue had effectively disappeared. The reason for this was that both parties did take advantage of the permission granted by the Deputy President to call one expert witness. The RTM Company served an expert report of Robert Heald FRICS. Assethold served an expert report of Daniel Procter, a building surveyor.26.In what might have been an unfortunate development, each expert addressed a different question. Mr Heald concerned himself with the relationship between the Property and the remainder of the Terrace or, more specifically, the relationship between the Property and the immediately adjacent property in the Terrace on the western side, which I understand to be the property known as 38 Eveline Road (