First-tier Tribunal Assesses Tenant Costs for New Lease Claim
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal assessed the costs payable by the tenant following a notice of claim for a new lease under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993. The tribunal found that the tenant owed the landlord £4166.40 including VAT for the costs incurred in obtaining the new lease.
⚖️ Legal holding
a person is entitled to pay the landlord's reasonable costs incurred in connection with the grant of a new lease under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal assessed the costs payable by the tenant following a notice of claim for a new lease under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal assessed the costs payable by the tenant following a notice of claim for a new lease under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The tribunal determined that the tenant was liable for the landlord's reasonable costs, including solicitors' fees, valuation fees, and disbursements, totaling £4166.40 including VAT.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : TR/LON/00BK/OC9/2024/0634 Property : 296 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] : Not represented Type of [NAME] : Costs under Section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Tribunal members : Mr [NAME] [NAME] of determination and venue : 12 March 2025 at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 12 March 2025
DECISION
Summary of the tribunal’s decision (1) The amount of costs payable is £4166.40 including VAT Background 1. This is an [NAME] made by the [NAME] pursuant to section 60(1) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the Act”) for assessment of the costs payable
2 by the leaseholder following a notice of claim for a new lease under section 42 of the Act which was deemed withdrawn as the Respondent did not apply to the tribunal in time to determine disputed matters.
2. By a notice of a claim dated 6 December 2023 served pursuant to section 42 of the Act, the applicant exercised the right for the grant of a new lease in respect of the subject property. At the time, the applicant held the existing lease granted on 28 March 1980 for a term of 125 years from 25 December 1978. The applicant proposed to pay a premium of £300 for the new lease and £7600 for the other amounts under Schedule 13 of the Act.
3. On 8 February 2024, the [NAME] served a counter-notice admitting the validity of the claim and counter-proposed a premium of £22942 for the grant of a new lease.
4. Terms were not agreed, the leaseholder failed to apply to the tribunal by 7 August 2024 and the claim was deemed withdrawn 5. On 16 October 2024 the applicant applied to the tribunal for an assessment of the costs payable. The issues The hearing 6. The case has been decided on the papers [NAME] use of the electronic documents received which consist of a bundle prepared by the applicant. No correspondence has been received from the respondent. The claim 7. The applicant has submitted a costs bill totalling £4166.40 including VAT made up of • £2092 plus VAT solicitors fees, • landlords valuation fee £1350 plus VAT • Land registry £15 plus VAT • Courier £15 plus VAT
3 The Law 8. Section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 provides 60 Costs incurred in connection with new lease to be paid by tenant. (1)Where a notice is given under section 42, then (subject to the provisions of this section) the tenant by whom it is given shall be liable, to the extent that they have been incurred by any [NAME] in pursuance of the notice, for the reasonable costs of and incidental to any of the following matters, namely— (a)any investigation reasonably undertaken of the tenant’s right to a new lease; (b)any valuation of the tenant’s flat obtained for the purpose of fixing the premium or any other amount payable by virtue of Schedule 13 in connection with the grant of a new lease under section 56; (c)the grant of a new lease under that section; but this subsection shall not apply to any costs if on a sale made voluntarily a stipulation that they were to be borne by the purchaser would be void. (2)For the purposes of subsection (1) any costs incurred by a [NAME] in respect of professional services rendered by [NAME] shall only be regarded as reasonable if and to the extent that costs in respect of such services might reasonably be expected to have been incurred by him if the circumstances had been such that he was personally liable for all such costs. (3)Where by virtue of any provision of this Chapter the tenant’s notice ceases to have effect, or is deemed to have been withdrawn, at any time, then (subject to subsection (4)) the tenant’s liability under this section for costs incurred by [NAME] shall be a liability for costs incurred by him down to that time. (4)[NAME] shall not be liable for any costs under this section if the tenant’s notice ceases to have effect by virtue of section 47(1) or 55(2). (5)[NAME] shall not be liable under this section for any costs which a party to any proceedings under this Chapter before [F1the appropriate tribunal] incurs in connection with the proceedings.
4 (6)In this section “[NAME]”, in relation to a claim by [NAME] under this Chapter, means the landlord for the purposes of this Chapter, any other landlord (as defined by section 40(4)) or any third party to the tenant’s lease. The tribunal’s determination 9. The tribunal determines that the recoverable costs are the landlords solicitors fees and disbursements for investigating the tenant’s right to a new lease and costs in preparing a new lease, and the landlords valuation fee.
10. An itemised solicitors bill has been provided and the tribunal is satisfied that the hours spent and rates are appropriate for the matter. Similarly the disbursements are considered reasonable and the valuation fee is in line with previous decisions of this tribunal.
11. There are no representations from the respondent disputing any of the items.
12. The claim is therefore allowed in full in the sum of £4166.40 inclusive of VAT
Name: A Harris Date: 12 March 2025
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].
5 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 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).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 10 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Costs Assessment Under Leasehold Reform Act 1993
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Costs for New Lease Assessed by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Tenant Costs Under 1993 Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Reasonable Costs for Tenant's Lease Extensio…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Entitled to Recover Reasonable Costs Under Leasehold Reform Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Reasonable Costs for Granting a New Lease Under the Leasehold Reform Act 19…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Lease Premium Under the 1993 Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Reasonable Costs Determination for New Lease Application
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Decides Tenant Costs Under Leasehold Reform Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant ordered to pay landlord's costs for lease extension application
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 landlord's solicitors' fees and disbursements for investigating the tenant's right to a new lease were recoverable.
- The costs for preparing a new lease were recoverable.
- The landlord's valuation fee was recoverable.
- The hours spent and rates for the solicitors' bill were considered appropriate.
- The disbursements claimed were considered reasonable.
- The valuation fee was in line with previous decisions of this tribunal.
- The respondent did not dispute any of the claimed cost items.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal decided that the tenant owed the landlord £4166.40 including VAT for the costs incurred in obtaining a new lease.
Who was involved?
The case involved a tenant and a landlord.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was liable for the landlord's reasonable costs because the tenant's notice for a new lease was deemed withdrawn due to lack of response from the tenant.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The court applied the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, specifically section 60.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the tenant's notice for a new lease was deemed withdrawn, triggering the landlord's right to claim costs.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they respond to notices in a timely manner to avoid being liable for the landlord's costs.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the notice of claim, the counter-notice, and the landlord's costs bill.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal 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 cases involving leasehold reform and costs assessment.
