Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Allocation
ASB
Assured Shorthold tenancy
assured-tenancy
Benefits and care
Deposits
Disrepair
Homeless
Housing Conditions
Housing law - All
Introductory and Demoted tenancies
Leasehold and shared ownership
Licences and occupiers
Mortgage possession
Nuisance
Possession
Regulation and planning
right-to-buy
secure-tenancy
Succession
Trusts and Estoppel
Unlawful eviction and harassment
By J
27/02/2011

Size doesn’t matter (again)

We noted Craftrule Ltd v 41-60 Albert Palace Mansions (Freehold) Ltd when it was in the High Court (see our note, here). I won’t repeat our earlier note – it’s basically about what it means to be a “self-contained part of a building” under s.3, Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (collective enfranchisement; though it’s also relevant for those doing Right to Manage work under s.72, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002). The Court of Appeal has now upheld the decision of the High Ct ([2011] EWCA Civ 185). There is no requirement that the smallest possible “part of a building” be enfranchised, so, on the facts of the case, a building of 20 flats was still a self-contained part of a building, notwithstanding that it was also possible to constitute it as two self-contained parts of 10.

 

J is a barrister. He considers housing law to be the single greatest kind of law known to humankind and finds it very odd that so few people share this view.

0 Comments

Leave a Reply (We can't offer advice on individual issues)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.