Our block has a slightly unusual structure and we have realised that one of the leases of the communal parts is held by a separate company. We did not serve our RTM claim notice on them. Does that mean the whole Right to Manage claim falls apart?
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court has held that an RTM company's failure to serve its claim notice on every landlord required by section 79(6)(a) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 does not automatically invalidate the acquisition of the Right to Manage. That does not mean an RTM company can ignore the statutory service requirements. The claim notice should still be served on every person required by the legislation, and an omitted landlord may be able to challenge the process. The consequences of a defect of this kind depend on the statutory procedure in question and on the circumstances of the particular claim.
The Right to Manage is acquired through a formal statutory procedure under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The central document is the claim notice, and the Act specifies who must receive it.
Section 79(6)(a) requires the claim notice to be given to each person who is landlord under a lease of the whole or any part of the premises. That wording is wider than it might first appear. It is not limited to the freeholder. It can include an intermediate landlord who holds a lease of part of the development.
In blocks with straightforward title this rarely causes difficulty. In developments with layered lease structures it can, and the identification exercise deserves proper attention.
An intermediate landlord sits between the freeholder and another leaseholder in the leasehold structure:
An intermediate landlord may hold a long lease of part of a development even where it has little or no practical involvement in managing the residential building. Not every development has one, but where headleases or leases of commercial or communal parts exist, someone other than the freeholder may be a landlord for the purposes of section 79(6)(a).
Tudor Studios was a former factory in Leicester converted into student accommodation. As well as residential and study accommodation, the development included communal areas such as a common room, a communal laundry, a reception and a gym.
A1 Properties (Sunderland) Limited held long leases of communal areas within the development. Tudor Studios RTM Company Limited sought to acquire the Right to Manage and served its claim notice on the freeholder and the management company, but not on A1 Properties.
A1 Properties was nevertheless a landlord for the purposes of the statutory service requirement. The question for the courts was whether that omission invalidated the RTM company's acquisition of the Right to Manage.
The Supreme Court dismissed A1 Properties' appeal. It confirmed that a failure to serve the claim notice on a landlord required by section 79(6)(a) does not automatically make the acquisition of the Right to Manage invalid.
The distinction the Court drew is between a procedural defect in a statutory process and a defect that destroys the whole process. Not every failure to comply with a statutory requirement produces the same consequence. Rather than assuming that any breach must be fatal, the Court looked at the purpose and structure of the RTM legislation and asked what consequence Parliament is to be taken to have intended for non-compliance with that particular requirement.
No.
Section 79(6)(a) still requires the RTM company to serve the relevant landlords. The Supreme Court judgment is about the consequence of failing to comply, not about whether the requirement exists.
RTM companies should therefore continue to:
Proceeding casually on the basis that a mistake might later survive challenge is not a sensible way to run a statutory claim. Defects invite disputes, and disputes cost time and money even when they are eventually resolved in the RTM company's favour.
An omitted landlord is not necessarily left without a remedy simply because the acquisition is not automatically void. The statutory scheme contains mechanisms through which an RTM company's entitlement to acquire the Right to Manage can be tested and determined, and the courts and tribunals can take account of what has actually happened in the process.
What that means in a particular case depends on the facts, the stage the claim has reached and what the omitted landlord does once it learns of the claim. Where an omitted landlord becomes known during an active claim, specialist advice should be obtained rather than a general rule applied.
The particular circumstances mattered. A1 Properties did not have management responsibilities for the premises. The First-tier Tribunal had already considered the RTM company's entitlement and determined that it was entitled to acquire the Right to Manage. Against that background, the Supreme Court concluded that the omission did not invalidate the acquisition.
Those facts should not be converted into a universal rule that a landlord without management functions can always be left out. The outcome reflected the way that claim had progressed, not a general licence to omit landlords.
The judgment reduces the risk that every technical service mistake automatically destroys an otherwise valid RTM claim. That is welcome, because RTM claims are run by resident-led companies rather than by institutions with in-house legal teams.
The safest approach nonetheless remains to comply with the statutory procedure from the outset. Before serving the claim notice, an RTM company should understand:
Complicated title structures deserve particular attention. Converted buildings, mixed-use schemes and phased developments are the ones most likely to contain a lease that nobody remembers.
An RTM company may identify the registered freeholder and assume that this is the only landlord that matters. That can be wrong. There may be:
The title and lease structure should be reviewed carefully before the claim notice is served, not afterwards when a landlord appears and objects.
The Supreme Court did not decide that compliance with the RTM statutory procedure is optional, and it did not establish that every defective RTM notice will remain valid.
The legal consequences of a defect depend on the particular statutory requirement, the nature of the defect, the structure and purpose of the legislation, what happened subsequently in the statutory process, and the relevant case law.
No. These are two different statutory requirements with two different lines of authority, and it is important not to run them together.
A1 Properties / Tudor Studios concerned a failure to serve the formal RTM claim notice on a landlord under section 79(6)(a). In A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 27, the Supreme Court held that the omission did not automatically invalidate the acquisition of the Right to Manage.
Cresta Court concerns a failure to serve a Notice of Invitation to Participate on a qualifying tenant before the formal claim notice is given. In Avon Freeholds Limited v Cresta Court E RTM Company Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 1016, the Court of Appeal reached a stricter conclusion about that requirement. That case is currently before the Supreme Court and judgment is awaited as at August 2026.
We look at that second line of authority separately in our answer on what happens if an RTM company misses a qualifying tenant's participation notice.
The distinction matters because a reader who takes A1 Properties as authority for the proposition that missed RTM notices are generally survivable may draw the wrong conclusion about a quite different statutory step.
If the omission comes to light during or after a claim, do not assume either that the entire claim is automatically invalid or that the omission can safely be ignored. Both assumptions are capable of causing real damage.
The implications depend on the circumstances and on the stage the claim has reached. Specialist legal advice should be considered before deciding whether to continue, correct, restart or defend the claim.
We work with resident-led companies alongside their solicitors, so we see how these claims run in practice and what the building needs on the day management transfers. If you are preparing a claim, or you have inherited one with a question mark over it, our Right to Manage guidance explains the process and our RTM company management service covers what happens after the acquisition date.
A1 Properties is best understood as limiting the automatic consequences of a procedural mistake, not as relaxing the statutory requirements. The practical work still sits at the identification stage, before any notice is drafted.
Looking only for the registered freeholder
Section 79(6)(a) refers to each person who is landlord under a lease of the whole or any part of the premises. In converted, phased or mixed-use developments that can include an intermediate landlord holding a lease of communal or commercial parts, as it did at Tudor Studios.
Reading A1 Properties as saying procedural errors do not matter
The Supreme Court decided what consequence follows from a failure to serve a particular notice on a particular class of person. It did not make the statutory procedure optional, and it did not decide that every defective RTM notice remains valid.
Confusing the claim notice with a participation notice
A claim notice under section 79 and a Notice of Invitation to Participate are different statutory steps. The Cresta Court litigation concerns the participation notice requirement and the Court of Appeal took a stricter approach to it.
Most questions on this topic are management questions rather than legal ones, and the two are worth separating. A managing agent can tell you how something works day to day and what it will cost. A solicitor tells you what your rights are and how a Tribunal is likely to view them.
East Valley Properties provides management expertise, not legal advice. Where a matter turns on the wording of your lease or on formal proceedings, we will say so and work alongside your solicitor.
The official material behind this guide. We summarise it in plain English rather than reproducing it.
Includes section 79 (notice of claim to acquire the right to manage) and the wider RTM acquisition procedure.
Section 79(6)(a) requires the claim notice to be given to each person who is landlord under a lease of the whole or any part of the premises.
The Supreme Court judgment of 16 August 2024, on the National Archives Find Case Law service.
The Supreme Court case page for the appeal, including the judgment and case details.
Earlier Court of Appeal authority on procedural defects in RTM claims, part of the wider case law on this issue.
Secondary commentary from a firm of solicitors, offered as further reading alongside the primary material.
We act as managing agent for RTM companies across Greater London and Essex, covering service charge accounting, compliance and contractor management on fixed fees.
Answered by Romain Maillard - Director, East Valley Properties
Romain manages residential blocks and estates for RTM companies, residents' management companies, share of freehold developments and freeholders across East London and Essex.
Published
This answer has been anonymised. Personal details, addresses and company names have been removed. Guidance is general and does not replace advice from a solicitor or surveyor on your specific block. East Valley Properties is a managing agent, not a firm of solicitors or legal advisers.
Whether you're an RTM Director, RMC Director, Freeholder or Leaseholder, our experienced block management team is here to help.
If your question could help other property owners, we may publish an anonymised version of the answer in our Knowledge Centre.
Book a free consultation with East Valley Properties to discuss your building, service charges, compliance or managing agent requirements.