Subscribe to access our searchable archive.
Login


Join Now
Forgot your password?
Search
You are here: Home » Right to Manage

Right to Manage

Download Print Send a summary of this page to someone via email.

Latest Articles

  Re: 1-16 Finland Street RTM Ltd
Nov 19, 2007
The leaseholders of a property established an RTM company and applied to exercise the right to manage. The freeholders served a counter-notice denying that the company was entitled to exercise the right to manage.
  Bernhard Baron RTM Company Ltd v Unicourt Ltd
Sep 10, 2007
The applicant RTM company applied for a determination that it was entitled to exercise the right to manage in respect of a particular building. The respondent landlord opposed the application.
  The House in Multiple Occupation (Certain Converted Blocks of Flats)(Modifications to the Housing Act 2004 and Transitional Provisions for s.257 HMOS)(England) Regulations 2007
Aug 17, 2007
Statutory Instruments
The Secretary of State has, by regulation, brought converted blocks of flats within the scope of the HMO legislation, with effect from October 1 2007.
  Finland St 1-16 RTM Company v Holding & Management (Solitaire) Ltd
Oct 20, 2006
The applicant RTM company applied for a determination that it was entitled to exercise the right to manage. The freeholder argued that the building did not qualify for the exercise of the right to manage and gave three reasons
  Greenhill RA RTM Company v Hildron Finance Ltd
Oct 20, 2006
The applicant RTM company sought to exercise the right to manage. The freeholder opposed this, arguing that the applicant could not show that every qualifying tenant had been invited to join the RTM company, as required by s.78 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2000.
  Portabello Pads RTM Company Ltd v UK Investments
Apr 19, 2006
The applicant applied for a determination that it was, on the relevant day, entitled to acquire the right to manage the property. The landlord had served a counter-notice which gave the incorrect date for the “relevant date.” The LVT was asked to decide, as a preliminary issue, whether the counter-notice was valid.
  Trafalgar Court RTM Company Ltd v Wells and others
Mar 27, 2006
The RTM company sought a determination that it was entitled to acquire the right to manage. The respondents disputed this, on the basis that the property was excluded from the right to manage by Schedule 6, in that the internal floor area of the non-resident parts exceeded 25% of the interal floor area of the premises taken as a whole.
  Upper Brook Street RTM Company Ltd v Aylwen
Dec 9, 2005
The applicant RTM company served a claim notice in June 2005. The Respondent, through her solicitors, purported to serve a counter notice. The counter notice was not in the form prescribed in the Right to Manage (Prescribed Particulars and Forms) (England) Regulations 2003.
  Gaingold Ltd v WHRA RTM Company Ltd
Nov 14, 2005
Gaingold Ltd was the headlessee of premises known as Westchester House, 72 Seymour Street, London. The respondent was an RTM company which gave notice of its intention to acquire the right to manage the premises.