Home
Contact Us
About Us
Subscribe
Subscribe
to access our searchable archive.
Login
Email
Password
Remember Me
Join Now
Forgot your password?
Recent Decisions
Earl Cadogan v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd; Howard De Walden Estates Ltd v Aggio and others
London Borough of Camden v The leaseholders of 37 flats at Grafton Way
Subject Areas
Service Charges
Administration Charges
Consultation Requirements
Costs
Appointment of a Manager
Right to Manage
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Legislation
Other
Insurance
Enfranchisement
Implied Terms
Expert Witnesses
Forfeiture
Right of First Refusal
About LVT Bulletin
About Us
About Arden Chambers
Subscribe
Contact Us
Archive
By LVT Issue
By Case Name
By Case Reference
By Subject
By Managing Agent
Search
Articles
SPORTELLI – V – CADOGAN
Legal
Disclaimer
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
<a href="http://www.statcounter.com/" _fcksavedurl="http://www.statcounter.com/" target="_blank"><img src="https://c21.statcounter.com/counter.php?sc_project=2213210&java=0&security=fb69c83a&invisible=1" _fcksavedurl="https://c21.statcounter.com/counter.php?sc_project=2213210&java=0&security=fb69c83a&invisible=1" alt="site stats" border="0"></a>
You are here:
Home
»
Appointment of a Manager
Appointment of a Manager
Latest Articles
Cawsand Fort Management Co. Ltd v EM Stafford & Others
Dec 19, 2007
Cawsford Fort Management Co. Ltd was the freehold owner of a group of buildings which contained 30 residential units. There was a common roadway, footpath and land. Each of the 30 residential units had a right of access over those areas. The freeholder had covenanted to carry out repairs and maintenance to those parts, but was not doing so.
Dhariwal v Global Prominence Incorporated
Oct 23, 2007
The LVT had found that the respondent had raised unreasonable service charges, had been in breach of covenant and had breached the RICS guidance on many occasions...
Cawsand Fort Management Co Ltd v Stafford and others
Nov 23, 2006
Cawsand Fort was a grade II listed building and an ancient monument. In addition to the historical elements, it contains a number of residential units. The applicant was the freehold owner of the whole site. Whilst a number of residential units had been demised on long leases, those leases only had rights of access over the remainder of the site which was not demised.
Denning v Beamsafe
Aug 4, 2006
The applicant was the LVT appointed manager, having been appointed in October 2004. He applied to be discharged from his appointment.
Maunder Taylor v Joshi
Aug 1, 2006
The appellant was an LVT appointed manager. He had been appointed under s.24 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 on 22 January 2003. The terms of the appointment allowed for a reasonable remuneration to be paid to the manager in respect of all works done
Fisher v Thurloe Properties Ltd
May 15, 2006
The issue arose as to the terms of the appointment and how these would fit with the terms of the lease.
Swanlane Estates v Hyde Housing
Apr 27, 2006
The landlord applied for a determination as to whether or not the tenant was in breach of covenant. It was alleged that the tenant had breached the covenant by replacing windows without the landlord’s consent.
Re: 2-4 Westferry Road, London, E14 8JL
Mar 23, 2006
The applicants had already applied to the LVT for the appointment of a manager. This application had been successful in 1999 and there had been a variation in 2001, re-appointing the same manager until the end of 2005.
Inglis v Empire Hill Ltd
Mar 15, 2006
The applicant had a long list of relatively minor complaints about the landlord, which, taken individually, did not look like much. However, it was alleged that, taken as a whole they showed a complete disregard for the proper management of the property.
Shorter v Fairhold Ltd
Mar 13, 2006
The applicant was the leaseholder of a self-contained flat in the second floor of a converted, detatched house. He was concerned that the respondent was not carrying out its repairing and decorating obligations correctly and that this was affecting the market value of his flat
Hutchings v Shattock
Jan 10, 2006
This was an application for the appointment of a manager and receiver. The applicant had not served a s22 notice. Rather, he had sent a letter to the respondent and his managing agent explaining his intention.
Roberts v Whitepoint Properties Limited
Jan 9, 2006
The applicants served a defective s22 notice. It did not identify their flats, nor specify an address for service. In any event, the allegations it made were all under consideration by another LVT in relation to a s27A application.
more articles >>