VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Freehold Price and Unpaid Rent

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that the price for the freehold interest of a property is £5,500 and there is no unpaid rent. This decision was made under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and based on a valuation report.

⚖️ Legal holding

Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the appropriate sum to be paid into court includes the price for the freehold interest and any unpaid pecuniary rent.

Topics

leasehold reformfreehold interestunpaid rent

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.9Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.27(5)

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the price for the freehold interest and the unpaid pecuniary rent for a property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the price for the freehold interest at £5,500 and found no unpaid pecuniary rent for a property located at 12 Heanton Street, Braunton EX33 2JS. The decision was based on the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and a valuation report by Mr David J Dark FRICS.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/18UE/OAF/2019/0008

Property

:

12 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[COUNSEL] [NAME]

Respondent: [redacted]

:

Type of Application

:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 ([RESPONDENT] Landlord)

Tribunal Member

:

[NAME] of Decision

:

10 October 2019

DECISION

The Tribunal determines that the price payable for the freehold interest is £5,500 and the amount of unpaid pecuniary rent is nil.

2 Background

1. By an Order of His Honour judge Lethem sitting at the County Court at Central London and dated 1 July 2019 the Claimant was required to apply to the Tribunal to determine “the price payable for the freehold of the property in accordance with section 9 of the Act: and the amount or estimated amount of any pecuniary rent payable for the property up to the date of the conveyance which remains unpaid in accordance with section 27(5)(b) of the Act”

2. A valuation report prepared by Mr [NAME] dated 10 September 2019 has subsequently been provided assessing the purchase price at £5,500.

3. An inspection of the property has not been made.

The Lease

4. The site is identified on the HM Land Registry plan edged red under title number DN313591 and is held by way of a lease for a term of 300 years from 13 March 1788 and made between parties said to be “unknown”. It is further stated that no rent is payable.

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 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.

6. Section 9 of the Act sets out in detail the assumptions to be made and the procedure to be followed in carrying out the valuation. The effect of Section 27(1) is that the valuation date is the date on which the application was made to the Court.

7. There are various bases set out in Section 9 of the Act and the Tribunal determines that the appropriate basis is in Subsection 9(1) being that on 31 March 1990 the Rateable value of the house and premises was not above £500.

8. The Tribunal takes account of the following decisions: Arbib v Cadogan (2005), [COMPANY] v Sportelli (2006) and [COMPANY] (2012).

The Premises

3 9. The property comprises an end of terrace two storey house built about 1800.

Evidence

10. In his expert report Mr [NAME] states that the accommodation comprises a lounge, inner hallway and kitchen on the ground floor with 2 bedrooms and a shower room on the first. The property has recently been refurbished with new wiring, gas boiler, new windows, wood burning stove and kitchen and shower room fittings.

11. The property fronts directly on to the pavement. There is no off road parking or garage. There is an enclosed rear courtyard garden and small lawned area.

12. Mr [NAME] made his determination on an open market value of the property at £215,000, a site value proportion of 33.00% (£70,950) a modern ground rent at 5% (£3,547.50) capitalisation rate of 5% and a deferment rate of 5% for the unexpired term and 7% on the reversion. He takes the valuation date at 23 January 2019.

13. In support of his open market value of £215,000 Mr [NAME] refers to the sale of 5 properties of similar or slightly larger sizes and with sale prices between £195,000 and £225,000 with sale dates between 8 March 2017 and 25 September 2018.

Decision

14. I accept the valuation date at 23 January 2019 that being the date the application was made to the County Court.

15. Whilst I do not accept all of the constituent parts of Mr [NAME] valuation I am able to confirm his valuation of £5,500.

16. I also determine that the amount of unpaid pecuniary rent payable for the property up to the date of the proposed conveyance is nil.

17. The Tribunal therefore determines that the price payable for the freehold interest is £5,500 and the amount of unpaid pecuniary rent is nil.

D [NAME]

10 October 2019

4 1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office, which has been dealing with the case. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

2. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

3. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 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 appropriate sum to be paid into court includes the price for the freehold interest.
  • Unpaid pecuniary rent must be included in the sum to be paid into court.
  • The First-tier Tribunal determines the appropriate sum for the freehold interest.
  • Landlords can be dispensed from consultation requirements if it is reasonable and no prejudice is caused.
  • Tenants are entitled to pay reasonable costs incurred by the landlord.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal decided the price for the freehold interest is £5,500 and there is no unpaid pecuniary rent.

Who was involved?

The claimant and the missing landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on a valuation report and the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 sections 9 and 27(5) were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The valuation report by Mr a person J Dark FRICS was crucial in determining the price.

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

The decision was for the claimant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider applying to the Tribunal for a valuation under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation report and the lease agreement were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person wishing to appeal must seek permission from the First-tier Tribunal within 28 days.

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

It is recommended to get 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.