Introduction

In Brickfield Properties Ltd v Oakwood Court Blocks 9 & 10 RTM Company Ltd [2026] UKUT 133 (LC), the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has provided welcome clarity on one of the more technical hurdles in multi-block Right to Manage (RTM) claims: whether services can be said to be “independent” for the purposes of section 72(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

The right to manage is often perceived to be a low-cost alternative to acquiring the freehold collectively by participating flat owners.

In practice, it is heavily litigated by landlords seeking to retain control of management as there are a lot of traps for the unwary.

This case concerned a claim for the right to manage made in respect of two blocks within a wider building.

The issue

The right to manage is available in respect of a building that forms part of a wider building but there are further criteria that need to be satisfied:

• It must constitute a vertical division of the building such that it could be redeveloped independently from the rest of the building; and
• The relevant services provided for its occupiers must either be provided independently of those provided to occupiers of the rest of the building or “could be so provided without involving the carrying out of works likely to result in a significant interruption in the provision of any relevant services for occupiers of the rest of the building”. ‘Relevant Services’ being those provided by means of pipes, cables or other fixed installations.

In this case, the landlord challenged qualification under this last criteria on the basis significant interruption would be caused. They also took issue with the procedure.

The services in question concerned the gas supply, the door entry system, telephone and broadband services and the fire alarm.

Findings

A number of interesting points came out of the analysis undertaken in this regard:

A service is independent as long as it's subdivided by the time it reaches the relevant building; it isn't fatal that it's shared as it comes off the mains.

A purposive approach will be taken “the main objective of the legislation is clear and the intention was that the process should be “the simplest possible to reduce potential for challenge by an obstructive landlord…without distorting the law or giving the statute a meaning that the language cannot support we consider that we should construe [the relevant legislation] in a practical way so as to ensure that we do not render nugatory the rights conferred by [it]”.

Where expert evidence was accepted that the gas supply could be closed off with a valve and a fresh supply provided there could be no significant interruption.

A separate door entry system could be installed, and it was irrelevant that the current arrangement involved porter service and so the RTM property would no longer have the benefit of that as it was the door entry system rather than the porter's input that there was the relevant “service”.

Telephone and broadband lines passing through the RTM blocks to flats within others was not an issue as they were already separate (the lines ran through the basement of the RTM block) so work undertaken to one set of lines wouldn't affect those serving flats in other blocks and the landlord would still have access for maintenance and in any event

The fire alarm underscores the importance of persuasive expert evidence; the First Tier Tribunal preferred the expert employed by the RTM company and so decided the issue on the base of his expert evidence that installing a new separate system for the RTM blocks would only take a few days and not cause any disruption to the other blocks.

While the level of interruption in aggregate making services independent where relevant is relevant, the landlord failed on two counts. Firstly, the First Tier Tribunal decision couldn't be interfered with unless plainly wrong or irrational. Secondly, the disruption was found to be acceptable.

Practical implications

Each service needs to be analysed as to whether it is currently separated and if not the disruption required to provide for an independent supply.

Short-term disruption will rarely defeat a claim.

Persuasive expert evidence is key; the RTM company's expert regarding the fire alarm was preferred as the landlords “tended to exaggerate”.

Flat owners seeking management of part of the building will feel greater confidence in making claims in future.

Commentary

The Upper Tribunal has reinforced that the legislation is intended to work in practice.

Technical objections based on shared services will carry limited weight unless they demonstrate real operational difficulty.

With further reform anticipated under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, the direction of travel remains towards greater accessibility of management rights for leaseholders.