Summary of MAN/00BY/LAM/2024/0005
First Tier Tribunal Section 24 Application to Appoint a Manager: Whether the Applicants’ Units in the Property Constitute “Flats” within the meaning of Section 60(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and thus, whether the Applicants are Qualifying Tenants for the purposes of Section 21 of the 1987 Act.
Background
The matter concerned an application under s.24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (“the Act”) to appoint a manager.
The property in question, was originally occupied as an office building, which was converted into student accommodation, also comprising of a basement and ground floor occupied by a supermarket, reception and four upper floors for residential use. The Applicants’ units are situated on the second and third floors of the property. The 4 upper floors consisted of clusters of shared accommodation, each cluster containing between 5 and 7 private units/bedrooms of which the occupants had the right to use shared communal facilities, including a bathroom, WC, a kitchen and lounge situated within each cluster. However, on an unspecified date, the Applicants installed kitchen and bathroom pods in each of the two units.
Preliminary Issue – Are the Applicants’ Units “Flats”
The Respondent brought to the Tribunal’s attention that the Applicants’ units, despite the installation of the kitchen unit and bathroom pods, did not qualify as self-contained units on the basis that they had been altered by the Applicants in breach of lease and/or by way of trespass against the Respondent. The Respondent further contended that the Applicants could not unilaterally or unlawfully alter a non-qualifying unit to create the right to seek the appointment of a manager pursuant to s.24 of the Act. For these reasons, the Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicants’ units constituted self-contained “flats” within the meaning of s.21 and s.60 of the Act. This was determinative of whether the Applicants were entitled to bring an application under s.24 of the Act and consequently, whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the Applicants’ Application for the appointment of a manger.
By virtue of s.60(1) of the Act: -
- a “dwelling” means “a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it”
- a “flat” means “a separate set of premises, whether or not on the same floor, which – (a) forms part of a building, and (b) is divided horizontally from some other part of that building and (c) is constructed or adapted for use for the purposes of a dwelling”
By Virtue of s.21 of the Act: -
- “The tenant of the flat contained in any premises to which this Part applies may, subject to the following provisions of this Part, apply to the appropriate tribunal for an order under section 24 appointing a manager to act in relation to those premises”
- “Subject to subsection (3) and section 24ZA, this Part applies to premises consisting of the whole or part of a building if the building or part contains two or more flats”
- “An Application for an order under section 24 may be made (a) jointly by tenants of two or more flats if they are each entitled to make such an application by virtue of this section, and (b) in respect of two or more premises to which this Part applies”
The Respondent argued that the Applicants’ units lacked essential living accommodation because when they were originally constructed, and even later when they were converted into student accommodation, the units were designed as bedsits, which did not contain essential living spaces such as kitchens and lounge areas. The essential living spaces that were provided were shared within each cluster of units. The Respondent argued that even with the installations, the two units continued to share living accommodation, because each cluster retains a communal lounge which remains part of the essential day-to-day living space for the Units.
The Respondent’s position was that the issue should be determined by the physical characteristics of the premises not by how they were let or used. The Respondent relied on Q Studios (Stoke) RTM Co Ltd v Premier Ground Rents No.6 Ltd. [2020] UKUT 197 (“Q Studios”) as authority for their assertations providing that, as in Q Studios, where a unit lacked essential living accommodation and where such accommodation was located elsewhere on a shared basis, the unit is not constructed or adapted as a separate dwelling. Thus, the Applicants’ units were created and adapted for shared living accommodation and did not meet the statutory definition of a “flat”.
The Applicants contested the Respondent’s claims on the basis that the physical features of the pods installed meant that the units were indeed constructed or adapted for use as self-contained dwellings satisfying the s.60 definition of a flat. They asserted that the communal facilities in the wider building were irrelevant, as the occupiers of the Units did not require their use. The Applicants also relied on Q Studios, noting that the legal test contained within the same was objective and based on physical characteristics of the units.
Decision
The key question was whether the two units were each a “separate set of premises… constructed or adapted for use for the purpose of a dwelling”.
In reaching its decision, the Tribunal relied on both Q Studios and Cloisters Business Centre Management Co Ltd v Anvari & Wolff [2026] EWCA Civ 17 (“Cloisters”) to assess whether the two units contained within their own physical boundaries the essential living accommodation required for independent residential occupation, specifically facilities for living, eating and sleeping and therefore did not rely on shared essential living accommodation in the surrounding cluster.
The Tribunal found that the Applicants’ Units lacked sufficient essential living space, noting that a “flat” should provide sufficient living space without the need to rely on the shared living accommodation available in the cluster. For example, the Tribunal noted that within a self-contained unit there should be sufficient space to accommodate a comfortable chair, a table at which one can eat and work unencumbered by kitchen and toilet facilities and space to move around without obstruction.
The Tribunal determined that, unlike the self-contained studios in Q Studios, the freestanding kitchen and bathroom pods installed by the Applicants had not created an equivalent self-contained unit. Whilst, with reference to the test in Aldford House Freehold Ltd v Grosvenor (Mayfair) Estate [2019] EWCA Civ 1848, the Tribunal accepted that the Applicants’ units formed ‘” separate sets of premises” in a structural sense however the adaptations did not transform them into viable dwellings. The installation of the pods by the Applicants did not “change the previous identity of the premises…to something suitable for use as a dwelling” and instead have only succeeded in reducing the amenity space of the units.
The Tribunal ultimately accepted the Respondent’s submission that when applying the relevant authorities, the Applicants’ units are not separate dwellings on the basis that they remain physically embedded within the cluster of flats in which essential living accommodation continues to exist and remains accessible for the occupants of the all the units.
Accordingly, the Tribunal determined that the Applicants’ units did not constitute “flats” within the meaning of s.60(1) of the Act. Consequently, this meant that the Applicants were not qualifying tenants for the purposes of s.21 of the Act and therefore, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider the application for the appointment of a manager under s.24.
