First-tier Tribunal Confirms Collective Enfranchisement Claim
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal confirmed the form of the transfer document for a collective enfranchisement claim, allowing leaseholders to buy the freehold interest in their property under the 1993 Act.
⚖️ Legal holding
Collective enfranchisement claims under the Leasehold Reform Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 can proceed if the conditions are met.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal confirmed the form of the transfer document for the collective enfranchisement claim.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal confirmed the form of the transfer document for a collective enfranchisement claim under the Leasehold Reform Housing & Urban Development Act 1993, allowing leaseholders to acquire the freehold interest in the property.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AH/OCE/2021/0045 Property : 59 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] [NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME] [COUNSEL] : [COUNSEL] [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] : Leasehold Reform, Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 – Section 27
Date of [NAME] To County Court
: 4 March 2021 Date of Decision :
22 July 2021
Tribunal Member : A. J. Rawlence MRICS
DECISION
The Tribunal confirms the form of the transfer document TRI for Title Number SGL 103731.
Background
1. This [NAME] concerns a collective enfranchisement claim for the Property.
2. The respondent is the freeholder of the Property.
2 3. The leaseholders wish to acquire the freehold interest in the Property. The person to be served with a Tenant's notice claiming the right to acquire the freehold cannot be found.
4. By the order (the ‘Order’) of District Judge Keeting in the Croydon Law Courts 21 April 2021 it was ordered that:
1. The orders of Deputy District Judge Davies dated 11 February 2020 and District Judge Rowland dated 17 August 2020 are set aside.
2.Pursuant to Sections 26 and 27 of the Leasehold Reform Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 (the "1993 Act") a. the Court declares as follows: -
i. On the date that this Claim is made the Property was a property to which the collective enfranchisement provisions of the 1993 Act applied,
ii. On the date that this Claim is made the Claimants would not have been precluded from giving valid notice of the Claim under Section 13 of the 1993 Act.
3. It is ordered that under Section 26(1) of 1993 Act that the freehold interest in the Property do vest in the First Claimant (as the Nominee Purchaser) pursuant to Section 27(1)(a) of the 1993 Act for nil consideration.
4. It is ordered that. either a partner in the firm of [NAME] as appropriate be appointed as the Designated Person for the purpose of executing the Transfer Deed (TR1) or such other person as the Court deems appropriate.
5. the Claim be transferred to the First Tier Tribunal for approval of the Form of transfer.
Applicant’s submissions
5. Following the Court Order, the Tribunal is [NAME] a determination of the form of transfer document under Title SGL 103731.
6. Two previous Court Orders had been granted but the Land Registry raised two issues when the applicant attempted to register title.
7. The first issue was resolved by the revocation of both Orders and a new Order granted on 21 April 2021.
8. The second issue required an additional statement under section 24(10) of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development 1993. The Form of Transfer document makes such a provision.
A [NAME] 22 July 2021
3 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 regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office 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 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 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Right to Manage Company Granted Dispensation for Urgent Drain Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Premiums for New Leases Based on Expert Valuations
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Masonry Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Lift Repairs Dispensation Without Conditi…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Compressor Replacements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Boiler Installation Without Full Consulta…
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 claim meets the statutory requirements for collective enfranchisement.
- Works are deemed urgent and necessary for health and safety reasons.
- Tenants have made improvements to the property, leading to a rent adjustment.
- The landlord is dispensed from consultation if the works are urgent and there is no prejudice to tenants.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The application for rent determination is struck out due to a defective landlord's notice.
- The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction if the application does not meet statutory requirements.
- The property is already fully tenanted, preventing a new rent determination application.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It confirmed the form of the transfer document for a collective enfranchisement claim.
Who was involved?
Leaseholders and the freeholder of the property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to confirm the form of the transfer document because the conditions for collective enfranchisement were met.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Leasehold Reform Housing & Urban Development Act 1993, specifically sections 26 and 27.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the conditions for collective enfranchisement were satisfied.
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 can also pursue collective enfranchisement if the conditions are met.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents related to the conditions for collective enfranchisement mattered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
Yes, it is recommended to get a solicitor for a case like this.
