[2025] UKUT 88 (LC)

Part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) provides for applications to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) by any party to a long lease of a flat for an order varying the lease. The FTT is given jurisdiction to make such an order only if it is satisfied that the lease “fails to make satisfactory provision with respect to” one of the matters listed in section 35(2), 1987 Act. Those matters include repair, insurance, the provision of services, the recovery of expenditure by one party for the benefit of others, and the computation of service charges.

In what circumstances can it be said that a lease “fails to make satisfactory provision with respect to” one of the matters listed in section 35(2)? Must the lease contain a defect, or be unworkable or incapable of being understood, or will some lesser infelicity suffice to give the FTT jurisdiction to order a variation? And if the FTT decides that a lease is unsatisfactory in a relevant respect, what factors should it take into account when deciding whether to make an order?

These questions arise in this appeal against a decision of the FTT, Property Chamber dated 20 March 2024 refusing an application by the appellant, 56 Westbourne Terrace RTM Co Ltd, to vary the leases of each of the eleven flats in the building from which it derives its name. The application was supported by the leaseholders of eight of the flats but opposed by the leaseholders of three. The leaseholders have all been joined as respondents to this appeal. Mr Jeremy Polturak, who owns one flat, and Mr Robert Davies, who owns two, oppose the appeal; the remaining respondents continue to support the position of the RTM Company. The respondents’ names are included in an appendix to this decision.

The only variations which are now sought are to include provisions in each lease which would allow the landlord, and the RTM Company, to recover their costs of proceedings to enforce any of the covenants in the lease either as an administration charge payable only by the leaseholder concerned, or as part of the service charge payable by all leaseholders.

At the hearing of the appeal the RTM Company was represented by Carl Fain and Ceri Edmonds, and Mr Polturak was represented by Jamal Demachkie. I am grateful to them for their assistance. Mr Davies attended the hearing but chose not to speak; he made it known that he agreed with the submissions of Mr Demachkie.