[2025] UKUT 292 (LC)

Grounds 2 and 3 together are at the heart of the appeal. Ground 2 is that the FTT was wrong in principle to find that the lease failed to make satisfactory provision as required in section 35(2)(e); the appellants take issue with the analysis in 56 Westbourne Terrace and argue that a lease cannot be varied under section 35 unless it is seriously defective. Ground 3 requires the Tribunal to consider what factors are relevant when considering whether a lease fails to make satisfactory provision as required by section 35, because the appellants argue that the identity and financial circumstances of the respondent as an RTM company cannot be relevant to the decision. I take the two grounds together and look at the parties’ arguments in turn.