[2025] UKUT 246 (LC)

The manager initially sought to have his application for directions heard at the hearing on 25 November. He asked the FTT whether he should continue to press for funding from the Fund and, if it was granted, whether he should carry out the remediation work or whether he should request that those parts of the Order which prevent the appellants from carrying out their remedial scheme should be removed. The manager adopted a neutral position on the proper course and said that he would do as he was directed by the FTT.

The appellant's might have responded to the manager's application for directions by explaining why they considered that the second suggested course of action should be preferred, namely that the manager should step aside from involvement in remediation and leave them to get on with it. But the appellants did not do that. Instead, they issued a separate application of their own on 25 October in which, in substance, they asked for the manager's second option to be implemented by unspecified variations to the Order to remove some of his functions and to leave them free to undertake their own obligations under the Act. They also sought variations to enable them, once again, to levy service charges to fund the performance of their obligations to the extent permissible under the 2002 Act.

In some respects, the appellants’ application went further than the manager's, which was limited to remediation, whereas the appellants want to remove any overlap between the Order and the building safety functions in Part 4 of the Act. The rival applications were also slightly different in form, one requesting a variation of the Order, the other seeking directions for compliance or dispensation from compliance with the Order. But in substance both applications address the most significant issue facing the appellants and the manager and impacting the lives of the leaseholders, namely the remediation of building safety defects by a significant programme of works. The appellants recognised that overlap and that the issues raised by the two applications, though not identical, could not sensibly be considered in isolation.