First-tier Tribunal Approves Collective Enfranchisement Claim

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/OCE/2021/0109 HMCTS Code : V: CVPREMOTE Property : 20 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COUNSEL], Counsel Respondent : [redacted] Representative : - Type of [NAME] : A collective enfranchisement claim made under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Tribunal members : Judge [NAME] of hearing and venue : 14th December 2021 at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 17th December 2021

DECISION

Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote video hearing which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was V: CVPREMOTE. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and no-one requested the same and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing. The documents

2 that we were referred to are in a bundle of 367 pages, the contents of which we have noted. The order made is described at the end of these reasons. Summary of the tribunal’s decision (1) The Tribunal determines that the form of Transfer attached hereto in Land Registry Form TR1 is approved. (2) The sum due to [NAME] is £20 only from any tenants of the property at 20 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] at the time of the conveyance (3) No properly demanded ground rent is due to the [NAME]. Background 1. This is a collective enfranchisement claim made by the Applicant nominee purchaser in respect of an Initial Notice dated 21 June 2018.

2. By order of District Judge Langley sitting at the County Court in Central London in claim number F10CL347 dated 21 June 2019, in default of a counter-notice under s.21(1) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”), it was declared that the participating tenants specified in the Initial Notice were on 21 June 2018 entitled to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement in relation to 20 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the property”) and that the Applicant nominee purchaser is entitled to acquire the freehold interest in that property together with the rights specified in the initial Notice on the terms proposed in the initial Notice.

3. An [NAME] by [NAME] to set aside that order was dismissed on 26 September 2019.

4. No binding contract incorporating the terms specified in the 21 June 2019 order having been entered into by the end of the appropriate period specified in s.25(8) of the 1993 Act, by order of District Judge Lightman in claim number F03CL440 dated 27 November 2020, a vesting order was made under s.25(6) of the 1993 Act as follows: “5. The interests to be acquired by the Claimant as specified in paragraph 3 of the 21 June 2019 Order and the Initial Notice shall be vested in the Claimant on the terms specified in the 21 June 2019 Order and the Initial Notice.

6. Upon the Claimant paying into Court the appropriate sum in respect of each of those interest, there shall be executed by a District

3 Judge of this Court a conveyance which (a) is in a form approved by the First-tier Tribunal, and (b) contains such provisions as may be so approved for the purpose of giving effect to this Order.

7. The “appropriate sum” for the purpose of this Order in respect of the interests to be acquired is the aggregate of- (a) £6,407.44 (being the price specified in the Initial Notice of £36,400, minus the aggregate of the sums payable by the Defendant in respect of the Claimant’s costs pursuant to paragraph 2 of the 26 September 2019 Order, paragraph 4 of the 21 June 2019 Order and paragraph 10 of this Order below); and (b) any amounts or estimated amounts determined by the First- tier Tribunal as being, at the time of execution of the conveyance, due to the transferor from any tenants of his premises comprised in the Specified Premises (whether due under or in respect of their leases or under or in respect of any agreements collateral thereto)”. [128-129]

5. By paragraph 8 of District Judge Lightman’s order, the matter was transferred to the First-tier Property Tribunal (“FTT”) for determination of the following distinct issues: (1) The form of the conveyance to be executed in favour of the Claimant; and (2) The amounts or estimated amounts which at the time of execution of the conveyance, may be due to the Defendant from any tenants of the property (whether due under or in respect of their leases or under or in respect of agreements collateral thereto). [129] 6. [RESPONDENT] is named as the Defendant in the County Court proceedings as well as being named as the Respondent in the FTT proceedings. However, [RESPONDENT] [NAME] is registered as holding freehold interest in the property. The Applicant asserts that these are one and the same person, as evidenced in various documents: (i) In the Cardiff Crown Court Restraint Order Prohibiting Disposal of Assets dated 21/04/2015, Mr [NAME] is prohibited from disposing of assets including “(t) the property known as 20 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] registered at the Land Registry under title number 280386 in the name of [NAME] [NAME], a name used by [NAME];” [308] (ii) In a letter written by [NAME] whilst in prison on 14/12/2017, he writes “Please note freehold is in my name, there is ground rent outstanding on all flats… please let me know does the tenants wish to renew their leases. I will provide you details of my solicitors you can contact. Freehold is not for sale until case is finish. [NAME], 795 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]”[27]. When the Applicant’s solicitors

4 contacted [NAME], they responded on 08/06/2018 and stated “As acting solicitors to the Landlord, we confirm we will accept service of notice in respect of the above property” [48] (iii) In a letter from [NAME] to the father of one of the leaseholders, he writes “I have received your letter….. I am owner of …. [ADDRESS]… I have changed my name by deed pole and reverted back to [NAME]. In future you can contact me at Prison address..” [26] (iv) In a letter to the Applicant’s solicitors, [APPELLANT] writes on 1/09/2020 “I am the freehold owner of [ADDRESS]” [109] (v) In an email to the Tribunal Service, [NAME] writes on 20/11/2021 “I am willing to sell freehold interest to leaseholders” [356] The hearing 7. The Applicant was represented by [COUNSEL], counsel, who joined remotely by video. He was accompanied by his instructing solicitor, Ms [COUNSEL] of [COMPANY].

8. At 10 a.m. on the morning of the hearing, the Hearing Officer telephoned [NAME] to find out if he was intending to join. He stated that he had not had notification of the hearing and asked that the hearing be adjourned. He also stated that he had a hospital appointment and did not want to attend without legal representation. He was invited to join the hearing to make this [NAME], but he refused, stating instead that he was on his way to a hospital appointment and would discuss the matter with a representative in the new year.

9. In his submission in response to this [NAME] to adjourn, Mr [NAME] set out the long history of non-compliance by the Respondent both in the County court and the Tribunal. In the County Court this led to an [NAME] to set aside District Judge Langley’s order, which failed, and further to an [NAME] to adjourn the hearing before District Judge Lightman, which was refused.

10. In the proceedings before the FTT, [NAME] has failed to comply with any of the Tribunal’s directions. He was warned on 12/11/2021 by Judge Nicol who directed that “[NAME] does what is set out in paragraph 2 of the directions by 22nd November 2021, he will stand debarred from defending these proceedings any further” [343-346].

5 11. On 20/11/2021 the Respondent emailed the Tribunal referring to inter alia “outstanding ground rent in the sum of £28,000”. On 25/11/2021 Judge N Carr confirmed and directed “[NAME] has not complied and stands automatically debarred as at 23 November 2021. He has 28 days from that date to bring an [NAME] to lift the bar in accordance with rule 9(5) and (6) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013. I hereby direct that any such [NAME] must remedy the default, ie it must be accompanied by Mr [NAME] statement of case and documents complying with the requirements of paragraph 2 o the Directions set out above” (sic) [360-363].

12. In relation to notification of this listing, the Tribunal informed both parties by letter and email on 15/11/2021, and on 7/12/2021 the Applicant’s solicitors wrote to him by special delivery and by email with the appeal bundle and reminding him of the hearing today. Neither of those emails have ‘bounced’ back, and it is not accepted that he was not informed of the hearing date. It is further argued that as the Respondent was debarred from 23/11/2021 and whilst he may have 28 days from that date to bring an [NAME] to lift the bar, he has to date failed to make any [NAME] to remedy that default.

13. Having considered the submissions from both parties, the [NAME] to adjourn the hearing is disproportionate in the circumstances and is refused. The issues Land Registry Form TR1 14. The form of Transfer attached hereto in Land Registry Form TR1 is approved.

15. The Tribunal accepts that [NAME] [NAME] is [NAME], as evidenced by documents described at paragraph 6 above.

Amounts due to the Respondent from the leaseholders 16. The Tribunal find that the only sum due to [NAME] is £20 from the leaseholders. This is confirmed by the leaseholder of flat 1 that at the date of the conveyance, he will owe the Respondent £20 by way of a fee for notice of assignment pursuant to clause 3(8) of his lease, although this is not a sum which the Respondent has ever demanded. [294, 298] 17. [RESPONDENT] has failed to produce any valid demand for ground rent. Although he claims various sums ranging from £9,800 to £28,000 which is later described as “approximately £28,000”.

6 18. By s.166 Commonhold Leasehold & Reform Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), a demand for Ground rent must be properly demanded. No evidence of properly demanded ground rent has been provided by [NAME] and by his own evidence, the Police seized all documents from his office and home on 24/09/2014.

[NAME] under Rule 13 for costs 19. A schedule of costs was provided seeking a costs order in the sum of £22,020.50 plus VAT. However, this was not served on the Respondent as confirmed by an email dated 17/12/2021 from the Applicant’s representative. This [NAME] for costs is therefore not being pursued by the Applicant at this stage. The next steps 20. This matter should now be returned to the County Court at Central London for the conveyance to be executed by a District Judge of that Court.

Name: Judge Brandler Date: 17th December 2021

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case

7 number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).