[2024] UKUT 59 (LC)
Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber

[2024] UKUT 59 (LC)

Fecha: 15-Mar-2024

The Landlords’ application under section 75, Building Safety Act 2022

The Landlords’ application under section 75, Building Safety Act 2022

59.

The Landlords’ application to the FTT of 4 October 2023 sought a determination under section 75(1), 2022 Act identifying the accountable persons and the principal accountable persons in relation to the higher-risk buildings on the Estate. The application stated that the Landlords considered themselves to be accountable persons under both section 72(1)(a) and section 72(1)(b). It also suggested that the Manager was also arguably an accountable person under section 72(1)(b) “as he is under relevant repairing obligations under the management order”.

60.

The application proposed that Octagon, the freeholder, was the most appropriate person to be the principal accountable person. The application also suggested that the Manager was arguably a principal accountable person.

61.

By the time matter came before the FTT for hearing the Landlords’ position had changed. They argued that they alone were accountable persons and that the Manager was not. For his part, the Manager did not admit that the Landlords were accountable persons and argued that he was an accountable person and should be designated by the FTT as the principal accountable person. The Residents Association and Circus Apartments supported the Manager’s claim to be designated the principal accountable person.

62.

The Landlords issued their application under section 75, 2022 Act at a time when the Residents’ Association and Circus Apartments had each applied separately under section 24, 1987 Act for the extension and variation of the existing order, or for a new order, and the Manager had applied for different variations. The applications were originally to be heard together but when some were delayed the FTT made use of a scheduled hearing to determine whether, in principle, a manager appointed by it under section 24, 1987 Act could be an accountable person. Although both the Manager and the Residents’ Association opposed that course, its good sense is obvious. If the answer to the question of principle is negative, it will inevitably bear on the functions which the Manager can be re-appointed to perform and perhaps even on whether he should be re-appointed at all.