VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Freehold Purchase Price in Missing Landlord Case

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the price to be paid for buying the freehold of a property where the landlord could not be found. They used a valuation report to determine the price should be £8,182.

⚖️ Legal holding

In a missing landlord case, the Tribunal calculates the price for purchasing the freehold based on a valuation report.

Topics

tenancyvaluationfreehold purchase

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.9(1)Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.27

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the price for purchasing the freehold of a property in a missing landlord case.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the price to be paid into court for the purchase of the freehold of a property where the landlord was missing. The Tribunal approved the draft proposed transfer and set the price at £8,182 based on a valuation report.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

Case Reference

: GM/LON/OOBH/OAF/2020/0003

HMCTS

: P: PAPERREMOTE

Property : 87 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

HMCTS Code : P: Paper

Applicant: [redacted] [NAME] : [COUNSEL] [COMPANY]

Respondent: [redacted] : None

Type of Application : Enfranchisement

Tribunal Members:

Judge Robert Latham

Sarah Phillips MRICS

Venue of hearing : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of Decision : 12 August 2021

________________________________

DECISION ________________________

(1) The Tribunal determines that price to be paid into court in respect of purchase of the freehold of 87 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is £8,182.

(2) The Tribunal approves the draft proposed transfer in form TR1 which has been submitted by the Applicant.

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

Description of Hearing This has been a hearing on the papers (“P”). The Directions provided for a paper determination and neither party has requested an oral hearing. This is a missing [RESPONDENT] case. There has therefore been no appearance by the Respondent. Pursuant to these Directions, the Applicant has provided the Tribunal a Bundle of Documents including a valuation report.

Background

1. On 14 January 2020, Deputy District Judge Harris, sitting in the County Court at Edmonton, made an order pursuant to Section 27 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 ("the Act") vesting the freehold title in 87 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (the “Property”) in the Applicant.

2. The District Judge ordered that the matter be transferred to this Tribunal to determine the terms upon which the applicant shall be entitled to acquire the Property.

Evidence

3. We have been provided with a valuation report by Mr [NAME], FRICS, of [COMPANY], dated 10 March 2020. He has computed the premium payable in accordance with Section 9(1) of the Act. He computes the premium to be £8,173. We largely agree with his assessment, but make a small adjustment in respect of the modern ground rent. We compute the premium payable to be £8,182.

Lease details

4. The Respondent missing [RESPONDENT] is the lessor of the Property which is a two- storey mid terrace house constructed late in the nineteenth century, with a loft conversion forming a second floor and two ground floor extensions. It would appear that the loft conversion and the extensions have been carried out in the last ten years.

5. The Applicants do not have a copy of the lease and one is not available from the Land Registry. However, the Official Copy of Register of Title records that the lease is dated 6 October 1896 and grants a term of 199 years from 25 December 1895 at an annual rent of £5.

Valuation date

6. The valuation date is 2 September 2019, namely the date of the application to the Court (Section 27 (1) (2)(a)).

Basis of Valuation

7. Mr [NAME] computes the freehold value of the Property to be £750,000. He has had regard to three sales in [ADDRESS]. The first is the sale of the Subject

3

Property in August 2015 for £635,000. He has adjusted this for time using the Land Registry Index for terraced house in Waltham Forest. His second, relates to [ADDRESS] which was put on the market, but did not sell. The third is the sale of [ADDRESS] in September 2019 for £690,000. We approve this figure.

8. Mr [APPELLANT] assesses the freehold value without the tenant’s improvements as £675,000. The improvements are the loft conversion and the ground floor extensions. We approve this.

9. The site value has been assessed as £262,500, namely 35% of the freehold value of the Property. This is appropriate.

Capitalisation Rate

10. Mr [NAME] has adopted a figure of 7% for the current ground rent of £5 pa. He has adopted 5% for the modern ground rent. We approve this.

Deferment Rate

11. We approve the “Sportelli” rate of 4.75% for deferment.

Calculation of the Premium

12. We attach our valuation which computes a premium of £8,128. This includes three elements:

(i) Value of the Term Ground Rent assessed on the reserved rent of £5 pa over 75.32 years: £71;

(ii) Value of the Section 15 Reversion (the Modern Ground Rent assessed on 5% of the site value for the subsequent 50 years): £6,086; and

(iii) The Value of the Ultimate Reversion (which is assessed on £675,000, namely the freehold value without the tenant’s improvements): £2,025.

Judge Robert Latham 12 August 2019

4

5

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 application for permission must be made by e-mail to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application 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 making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

6

📊 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 Tribunal calculates the price for purchasing the freehold based on a valuation report.
  • The tenant is entitled to extend their lease under relevant acts.
  • The tenant is entitled to acquire the freehold of their property under relevant acts.
  • It is reasonable to bypass statutory consultation requirements in urgent situations.
  • Tenants are entitled to reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred by the landlord.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified as leading to unfavorable outcomes 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 to be paid for purchasing the freehold of a property where the landlord was missing.

Who was involved?

The claimant wanted to buy the freehold of their property, but the landlord could not be located.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on a valuation report submitted by the claimant's representative.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 sections 9(1) and 27 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The valuation report provided by the claimant's representative 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 can use a valuation report to determine the price for purchasing the freehold of their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation report and the lease details were important in making the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) 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 like this.

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.