Conclusion on the second issue in the appeal
Conclusion on the second issue in the appeal
The claim notice served by the respondent did not comply with section 79(2) because Ms O’Connor had not been given a notice of invitation to participate. It was therefore voidable, but only at Ms O’Connor’s instance. She has not sought to challenge the claim notice; in fact she has waived the RTM company’s failure, and indeed is content with its acquisition of the right to manage. The claim notice cannot be challenged by anyone else. The FTT’s reasoning cannot stand, but the outcome was correct: the failure to give a notice to Ms O’Connor has not invalidated the claim notice and the right to manage is not prevented.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The legal background
- Policy and case law about the right to manage
- The registration of leases
- The factual background to the appeal
- The decision of the FTT
- The appeal
- More about the factual basis of the appeal
- Was Ms O’Connor a qualifying tenant? The appellant’s arguments
- The respondent’s arguments
- Further submissions about A1 (Sunderland)
- Discussion
- If Ms O’Connor was a qualifying tenant, did failure to serve a notice of invitation to participate invalidate the claim notice?
- The evolution of the law relating to procedural defects in the process of acquiring the right to manage
- The Supreme Court’s decision in A1 (Sunderland)
- The arguments about the second issue in the appeal
- The written representations after A1 (Sunderland)
- Discussion and conclusion about the second issue in the appeal
- Conclusion on the second issue in the appeal
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 335 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)