[2025] UKUT 115 (LC)

The application which came before the FTT concerns certain flats in a block of 57 flats known as Cudweed Court. The block itself is one of four blocks of flats in an estate known as 45 Millharbour, London E14 9TR.

The Appellant, which is a social landlord, holds 12 of the flats in Cudweed Court on long leases. The Appellant has underlet each of the 12 flats (“the Flats”) on shared ownership underleases. I will refer to these underleases as “the Occupational Underleases”. I will refer to the leases of the Flats held by the Appellant as “the Headleases”. As I understand the position, the Headleases were all granted on the same terms. Again as I understand the position, the Occupational Underleases were also granted on the same terms, but it should be noted that those terms differ from the Headleases.

The Occupational Underleases were each granted by the Appellant, as landlord, to the tenant/tenants of the relevant Flat. There was no other party to each of the Occupational Underleases.

The same is not true of the Headleases. Each of the Headleases was granted by Michael John Hunt, as landlord and freeholder, to the Appellant. The other party to each of the Headleases was the Second Respondent, Cudweed Management Company Limited. In broad terms the Second Respondent was a party to each of the Headleases as the management company, responsible for the delivery of services under the Headleases.

The application to the FTT was made by the tenants of eight of the Flats. The lead applicant was Dr Hakobyan. By the time the application reached the Hearing the applicants comprised the tenants of five of the Flats. The tenants of two of the Flats had withdrawn from the application. The tenant of one of the Flats had reached a compromise with the Appellant and the Second Respondent.

In order to avoid confusion in my description of the parties, as between the FTT and the Upper Tribunal, I will refer to the Second Respondent as “Cudweed”. I will use the collective expression “the Applicants” to mean those tenants of the Flats who constituted, at the relevant time, the applicants to the FTT. I will continue to refer to Sovereign Network Homes as the Appellant. I should mention that the Appellant was formerly Network Homes Limited but has since become Sovereign Network Homes pursuant to an amalgamation of social landlords.