VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Cost Determination Under Leasehold Reform Act

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the reasonable costs for transferring a leasehold property to the freehold. The decision excluded certain costs because the respondent did not participate in the proceedings.

⚖️ Legal holding

The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine the reasonable costs payable under section 9(4) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Topics

leasehold reformcost determination

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.21(1)(ba)Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.9(4)

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the reasonable costs payable under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the reasonable costs payable under section 9(4) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, excluding valuation costs due to the respondent's lack of participation in the proceedings.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference(s) : BIR/00CS/OC6/2023/0001

Properties : 91 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] : [APPELLANT]

Respondent: [redacted]

[COMPANY] of Applications : Under section 21 (1) (ba) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 for a determination of the reasonable costs payable under section 9 (4) of the Act. Tribunal Member : Tribunal Judge P.J Ellis V Ward BSc Hons FRICS – Regional Surveyor

Date of Hearing

:

7 March 2024

Date of Decision

:

11 March 2024

________________________________________________________________

DECISION _____________________________________________________

The sum payable for costs pursuant to section 21 (1) (ba) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 for a determination of the reasonable costs payable under section 9 (4) of the Act is £607.50 plus VAT and £6.00 Land Registry Fee

2

1. This is an application by the Applicant [APPELLANT] for determination of the Respondent’s costs payable by her following determination of the price payable for the acquisition by her of the freehold interest in the property under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (the Act).

2. The substantive matter application related to this, costs application has been determined. The Respondent was barred from taking part in the substantive proceedings, by order of the Tribunal made on 21 June 2023 pursuant to rules 9(3)(a) & (7)(a) Tribunal Procedure(First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber)Rules 2013.

3. Directions for determining this application were issued on 20 September 2023 directing the Respondent to serve a statement of costs by 4 October 2023. The Respondent has not served a statement of costs and the Applicant now makes this request for the Tribunal’s determination of her liability for the Respondent’s costs.

4. By section 21(1)(ba) of the Act the tribunal is given jurisdiction to determine the costs payable by the Applicant under s9(4) of the Act of the following matters:

(a)any investigation by the landlord of that person’s right to acquire the freehold; (b)any conveyance or assurance of the house and premises or any part thereof or of any outstanding estate or interest therein; (c)deducing, evidencing and verifying the title to the house and premises or any estate or interest therein; (d)making out and furnishing such abstracts and copies as the person giving the notice may require; (e)any valuation of the house and premises.

5. The Applicant is represented by [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME] of [NAME], a business established for the purpose of undertaking franchise valuations. He is very experienced in dealing with matters of this sort. He has made a submission

3

to the Tribunal of the costs for which the Applicant is responsible under the relevant legislation.

6. [NAME] [NAME] submission relates to the expenses described in s9(4)of the Act recited in paragraph 5. He contends that as the Respondent has taken no part in the proceedings or served any evidence including valuation evidence there should be no allowance for any valuation of the house and premises.

7. The other categories of cost in s9(4) relate to legal work. In that connection [NAME] [RESPONDENT] submits the Respondent has not incurred any costs in connection with investigating the Applicant’s right to acquire the freehold. Therefore, no fee is payable for this category of work.

8. Relying on his experience he has estimated the likely amount of work in preparation for the transfer of title at three hours in total by three fee earners at one hour each, one Grade A, one Grade b and the third Grade C. He submits the guideline rates for solicitors in outer Birmingham are: A- £255, B-£177 and C-£126 from which he calculates a reasonable estimate of legal fees is £588 to which should be added fees payable to HM Land Registry for deducing title which he claims is £6.00. [NAME] [NAME] admits the title to the property is one of several registered with HM Land Registry and that severance of the title may be required.

9. The Tribunal is satisfied with the approach adopted by [NAME] [RESPONDENT]. It determines that no fee is payable to the Respondent in connection with valuation of the property or the investigation of the Applicant’s entitlement to acquire the freehold.

10. The Tribunal accepts that three grades of fee earner are likely to be involved in the transaction but considers the split is not accurate. The Tribunal determines that the work involved is Grade A 30 minutes, Grade B 2 hours, Grade C one hour making the fees £607.50 plus VAT and £6.00 disbursement.

4

Appeal

11. If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply to this Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Any such application must be received within 28 days after these written reasons have been sent to the parties (rule 52 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013).

Judge PJ Ellis Chair

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The tribunal has the authority to decide on reasonable costs under the Leasehold Reform Act.
  • Specific provisions in the lease agreement must be met for cost recovery.
  • Works deemed urgent and necessary to prevent further damage can bypass consultation.
  • Open market value is used to determine the price for acquiring freehold interests.
  • Tenants are entitled to extend their leases based on statutory valuations.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • No specific factors listed against the claimant in the provided cases.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided the reasonable costs payable for transferring a leasehold property to the freehold.

Who was involved?

The claimant and the respondent employer were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the lack of participation by the respondent in the proceedings.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 sections 21(1)(ba) and 9(4) were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the respondent's failure to participate in the proceedings.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure the respondent participates fully in the proceedings.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents submitted by the claimant's representative were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.