[2024] UKUT 59 (LC)

Can a manager appointed by the First-tier Tribunal under section 24, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, be an “accountable person” within the meaning of section 72, Building Safety Act 2022?

That is the question which arises in this appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (Judge Vance and Judge Rushton KC) (the FTT) made on 21 December 2023. It was answered by the FTT as a preliminary question of law in an application made on 4 October 2023 by the first, second and third respondents for a determination under section 75, Building Safety Act 2022 (the 2022 Act) identifying the accountable persons and to select one of them as the principal accountable person in respect of each of the higher-risk buildings comprising the Canary Riverside Estate in East London.

The FTT’s answer to the question was that a tribunal appointed manager could not be an accountable person within the meaning of section 72, 2022 Act. That conclusion enabled it to answer the first of the questions raised by the application by identifying all those who are accountable persons in respect of the higher-risk buildings on the Estate. The second part of the application, in which the FTT must determine who is the principal accountable person in respect of each of the buildings, remains to be determined.

The FTT granted permission to appeal.

Canary Riverside is a large mixed estate comprising both residential and commercial premises in the docklands area of East London. It includes five buildings which, because of their size, are classified as “higher-risk buildings” for the purpose of the 2022 Act. These buildings have been the subject of disputes between the owners of the Estate and its residents since at least 2005 and their residential parts have been under the management of a manager appointed by the FTT pursuant to Part 2, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 since 2016.

The appellant, Mr Unsdorfer, was appointed by the FTT as the manager of the Estate in September 2019 to replace Mr Alan Coates who had held that position since October 2016.

The first, second and third respondents are all members of the Yiannis Group of companies. Octagon Overseas Ltd, the first respondent, owns the freehold of the Estate. Canary Riverside Estate Management Ltd, the second respondent, holds part of the reversion to a long lease from Octagon now comprising four of the higher-risk buildings on the Estate (Belgrave Court, Berkeley Tower, Eaton House and Hanover House). Riverside CREM 3 Ltd, the third respondent, holds the severed remainder of the reversion to the same long lease comprising Circus Apartments, the fifth higher-risk building. I will refer to the first, second and third respondents as “the Landlords”.

The fourth respondent, Circus Apartments Ltd, holds a sublease of Circus Apartments from Riverside CREM 3 Ltd for a term of 999 years. It is entitled to use the building as serviced apartments.

The fifth respondent named by the Landlords in their application to the FTT was the Residents Association of Canary Riverside, which represents the long leaseholders of the residential buildings on the Estate. For the purpose of the appeal the Association has nominated Ms Josephine Swaby, the fifth respondent, as its representative member.

Whether Mr Unsdorfer’s appointment should be renewed, and if so on what terms, is the subject of applications to the FTT under section 24, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 which are due to be heard over eight days beginning on 7 May. The question posed in this appeal is very relevant to the FTT’s consideration of those applications and the appeal has therefore proceeded on an expedited basis.

Written submissions in support of the Manager’s appeal were provided on behalf of the fifth respondent by Mr Jonathan Upton and on behalf of the fourth respondent by Mr Philip Rainey KC. At the hearing of the appeal the Manager was represented by Mr Daniel Dovar and the Landlords by Mr Timothy Morshead KC. I am grateful to all those who have participated.