VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Freehold Interest Price and Pecuniary Rent

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the price for the freehold interest and the pecuniary rent for a property. The price was set at £225.00 and the rent at £94.50, following an application under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

⚖️ Legal holding

The appropriate sum to be paid for the freehold interest and the pecuniary rent is determined according to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Topics

freehold interestpecuniary rent

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.21(1)(cza)Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.21(2)Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.27(5)

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the price for the freehold interest and the pecuniary rent payable.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the price for the freehold interest in a property and the pecuniary rent payable, following an application under sections 21(1)(cza), 21(2) and 27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The price was set at £225.00 and the pecuniary rent at £94.50.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

Case Reference : MAN/00CA/OAF/2023/0004

Property : 4a [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicants : [redacted]

[COUNSEL] : [NAME] [COUNSEL]

Respondent: [redacted]

: N/A

Type of Application : Houses and Premises – Leasehold Enfranchisement: Missing Landlord

S21(1)(cza), S21(2) and S27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Tribunal

: Valuer Chair J Fraser FRICS

Date of Decision : 14th June 2023

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 (1) The Tribunal determines that the price to be paid for the Freehold interest in 4a [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is £225.00.

(2) The amount of pecuniary rent payable in accordance with section 27(5)(b) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 is £94.50.

REASONS

Background

1. The Tribunal has received an application under sections 21(1)(cza), 21(2) and 27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“the Act”). The application arises following an application made to the County Court for a Vesting Order in the case of a missing Freeholder. On the 9th January 2023 District Judge Lampkin sitting at the County Court at Liverpool ordered that the Applicants may apply to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for the determination of the price payable for the Freehold interest in accordance with Section 27(5) and Section 9 of the Act. This is the sole issue for the Tribunal to determine.

2. On the 28th March 2023, Ms [NAME], Legal Officer of this Tribunal, gave directions to the Applicants to provide a bundle of documents in support of their application including; a statement of case; valuation evidence; a full copy of the leasehold and freehold land registers if so registered and any other documents that the party wishes to rely upon. That evidence has been provided along with supporting information provided for the County Court application and details of extensive enquiries made to establish the Rateable Value of the subject property.

3. The Tribunal considers it appropriate for the matter to be determined by way of a paper determination and, as no submissions have been received for an oral hearing, the application has been determined on the papers.

4. The Tribunal has not inspected the property.

The Law

5. Section 27(5) of the Act provides: The appropriate sum which in accordance with Section 27(3) of the Act to be paid in to Court is the aggregate of: a. Such amount as may be determined by (or on appeal from) the appropriate Tribunal to be the price payable in accordance with Section 9 above; and

3 b. The amount or estimated amount (as so determined) of any pecuniary rent payable for the house and premises up to the date of the Conveyance which remains unpaid.

The Property and Lease

6. The bundle includes a copy of past sales particulars which show that the property comprises a detached house and garage comprising three bedroom accommodation, set over two storeys, with the first floor accommodation contained within the former loft space.

7. The Property is registered with Leasehold Title Number MS461930 and it is held on an under-lease for a term of 999 years (less 3 days) from 25th March 1945 at a ground rent of £15 and 15 shillings per annum (£15.75).

8. Despite extensive enquires, the head-lease cannot be found and the Applicants believe it was for a term of 999 years from the 25th March 1945.

The Premium

9. The Tribunal is required to determine the premium payable for the Freehold Interest, calculated in accordance with section 9 of the Act. Section 9 sets out the premium to be paid to enfranchise and the valuation basis to be adopted. The valuation date adopted is the 17th November 2022 being the date of the application to the County Court, therefore the term remaining as at the valuation date is circa 921 years.

10. To support the application the Tribunal is provided with a statement and valuation calculation prepared by [NAME] [NAME] of [NAME] who prepares a valuation in accordance with section 9(1) of the Act. [NAME] [NAME] statement includes a declaration and complies in part with the requirements of Rule 19 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013, albeit does not summarise his qualifications or relevant experience. Nonetheless the Tribunal notes it contents.

11. The Tribunal is provided with details of the enquiries made to establish the Rateable Value of the property. It has not been possible for the Applicants to establish the Rateable Value on the Relevant Date, the Applicants state within their signed Witness Statements that they have received a letter (not provided to the Tribunal) from the water supplier [NAME] confirming that the supplier last adopted a Rateable Value of £422 in the period 1999 - 2002, assumed to be the Rateable Value prior to the introduction of Council Tax in 1993. The historic Rateable Value is required to determine the valuation basis (original or special) in accordance with Section 9 of the Act, however, given the long unexpired lease term, the Tribunal notes that the premium would remain the same regardless of the valuation basis adopted and therefore accepts the basis as being the original basis under section 9(1).

4

12. [NAME] [NAME] capitalises the ground rent for the remainder of the term, 921 years, at a capitalisation rate of 7% to arrive at £225. [NAME] [NAME] adopts a nil value for the first reversion to a modern ground rent and a nil value for the ultimate reversion, which occur in 921 and 971 years respectively. The Tribunal agrees that there is no value to the reversionary interest and agrees that 7% is an appropriate capitalisation rate reflecting that the ground rent is low and fixed for the entirety of the term. The Tribunal accepts [NAME] [NAME] valuation of £225.

13. The pecuniary rent payable in accordance with section 27(5)(b) of the Act has been calculated in accordance with the six-year limitation period. The Applicants confirm that ground rent has not been collected or demanded during their period of ownership and that the sellers also confirmed that ground rent was not paid during the seller’s ownership. The ground rent payable is £15.75 per annum, equating to £94.50 for the six-year limitation period.

Signed: J Fraser Valuer Chair of the First-tier Tribunal Date:14th June 2023

📊 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 price for acquiring a freehold interest is determined according to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
  • Tenants are entitled to acquire their freehold interest under conditions specified by the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
  • The valuation of the freehold interest and any unpaid rent is calculated as per the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
  • The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) sets the appropriate sum for the freehold interest based on legal provisions.
  • The determination of the sum to be paid for the freehold interest includes the valuation of the freehold and any unpaid ground rent.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified that went 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 price for the freehold interest and the pecuniary rent for the property.

Who was involved?

The claimant applied for the freehold interest and the respondent was a missing landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the valuation evidence and the requirements of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 21(1)(cza), 21(2) and 27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The valuation evidence provided by the claimant was crucial in determining the price.

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 follow the procedures outlined in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation evidence and the leasehold and freehold land registers were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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.