Right to Manage Key Case Update on 14 Park Crescent RTM Co Ltd

You are here: Home » Blog » Right to Manage Key Case Update on 14 Park Crescent RTM Co Ltd

The Upper Tribunal has delivered an important ruling on the definition of a ‘self-contained part’ of a building for RTM claims. This decision, which involved two significant appeals, clarifies the statutory test under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002).

The case involved two separate RTM claims:

1. Plaza Boulevard Case (Liverpool) – Three separate residential blocks were structurally connected via a central concrete podium and a shared underground car park.
2. Park Crescent Case (London) – A property within a terrace where the movement joints on the façade and foundations did not align with the party walls.

Each case questioned whether the properties in question could be classified as self-contained parts of a building, a key requirement for an RTM claim.

What is a ‘Self-Contained Part’?

Under sections 72(3) and 72(4) of the CLRA 2002, premises must meet three conditions to qualify as a self-contained part of a building:

• The part must form a vertical separation from the rest of the building.
• The structure should be capable of being redeveloped independently.
• Essential services must either be provided separately or capable of being provided independently without significant disruption.

The Tribunal had to assess whether these requirements were satisfied in both cases.

Tribunal’s Ruling: Boulevard Case Rejected

The Tribunal ruled that the three blocks in the Liverpool case did not constitute self-contained parts of a building. The key reasons included:

This decision reinforces the principle that RTM claims cannot be granted where the management of a shared facility, such as a basement car park, would be impractically divided.

Tribunal’s Ruling: Park Crescent Case Approved

Conversely, the Tribunal upheld the RTM claim for 14 Park Crescent and held that there is no requirement that the dividing line must be a perfectly straight boundary provided that a vertical line could be drawn

This ruling highlights the importance of physical structure over potential legal hurdles in RTM claims.

Key Takeaways from the Decision

• Properties that share integral structural components or management facilities may not meet the self-contained criteria.
• A vertical division does not need to be perfectly straight; it can pass through a party wall or shared foundation.
• The ruling provides authority not just RTM claims but also collective enfranchisement and building safety regulations, given the similar wording in other legislation.

A Significant Step in RTM Clarity

The Upper Tribunal’s decision provides much-needed clarity on what constitutes a “self-contained part” of a building. While it reinforces existing legal principles, it also signals a shift toward a more pragmatic interpretation of the RTM framework.

How we can assist

If you would like to discuss a proposed right to manage claim and/or would like to obtain a quote for our fees, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0204 511 0900 or info@leaselaw.co.uk.