Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber
Case No. UKUT-26-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Numbers:-LC-2022-346
Fecha: 17-Ene-2023
The issues in the appeal and cross appeal
21.Assethold appeals against the FTT Decision on grounds which can be summarised as follows:(1)The FTT were wrong to decide that the Property comprises a single building. The Property in fact comprises two sets of Qualifying Premises. Each of the Parts is a set of Qualifying Premises.(2)One RTM company cannot make RTM claims in respect of two sets of Qualifying Premises. The RTM company can only make a claim in respect of one set of Qualifying Premises; see Broomfield. RTM claims by the same RTM company in respect of more than one set of Qualifying Premises are not possible. (3)Craftrule was concerned with the definition of qualifying premises for the purposes of the collective enfranchisement provisions in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (
- © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023
- Introduction
- “the Property”
- “the 2002 Act”
- “the FTT”
- “Assethold”
- “the RTM Company”
- “the FTT Decision”
- “the Terrace”
- “the Parts”
- “the Western Part”
- Section 72
- “Qualifying Premises”
- EVELINE ROAD RTM COMPANY LIMITED
- Flat 5 Briar Court, 440 London Road, London, SM3 8JE
- the premises known as the building or part of a building containing Flats A, B, C & D at 36 Eveline Road, Mitcham CR4 3LE
- “the RTM Application”
- “Broomfield”
- “Craftrule”
- The issues in the appeal and cross appeal
- “the 1993 Act”
- “Number 38”
- “the Self-Contained Part Question”
- Should the FTT Decision be set aside?
- The Self-Contained Part Question – discussion
- The President
- Right of appeal