Case No. UKUT-62-(LC)

30.This issue has not yet been the subject of consideration in this Tribunal. As Elim Court establishes, it is a question of interpretation of the statute whether a failure to comply with the requirement in section 80(3) to include the name of each person who is both a qualifying tenant and a member of the RTM company in the claim notice is fatal to the validity of the claim. The answer to that question does not depend on the circumstances of any individual acquisition and should therefore be the same in the case of a block of ten flats as in a block of one hundred.31.In support of his argument that a failure to include the names of all qualifying tenants who are members of the company in the claim notice renders it wholly void, Mr Letman was able to point to the fact that the requirement is included in the statute itself, and not in secondary legislation or a prescribed form, and must be taken to have been regarded by Parliament as being of central importance. He was also able to say that in section 81(2) the Act identifies circumstances in which one type of defect in a claim notice will not invalidate the claim, but they did not include the circumstances of this case. 32.The register of members of a company is not a public document and it is likely that the information required by section 80(3) is to be included so that the landlord can verify for itself whether the RTM company has the necessary support, and perhaps also so that it knows who will be liable for its costs if the claim fails. These are all reasons why the inclusion of that information might be considered of sufficient importance that its omission should be fatal. On the other hand, the 2002 Act lacks a clear statement dealing with the consequences of non-compliance, such as is found in section 79(2).33.The RTM company in this case is not legally represented and Mr Joiner’s submissions related mainly to explaining the facts and the practical difficulties, as he saw them, of maintaining an up to date list of all qualifying leaseholders in a substantial block of flats. Given my conclusion on the first issue the outcome of this appeal does not turn on the answer to this final issue. The issue is an important one, and in those circumstances I prefer not to reach a concluded view on it in this case and will leave it for decision in a case where the answer matters.