First-tier Tribunal Determines Lease Extension Premiums
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on the premiums for lease extensions of flats in a residential property. The claimant requested a determination of the amount to be paid for new leases under the relevant act. The tribunal agreed with the valuation provided by the parties and set the premiums accordingly.
⚖️ Legal holding
The parties agreed on the terms of the leases and the premiums to be paid for the lease extensions.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal determined the premiums for lease extensions of flats in a residential property.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tribunal determined the premiums for lease extensions of flats in a residential property. The claimant sought a determination of the premium to be paid for the grant of new leases under section 48 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The tribunal agreed with the valuation provided by the parties and set the premiums accordingly.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : AB/LON/00AG/OLR/2019/0351 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COUNSEL], Solicitor of [RESPONDENT] Respondent : [redacted] Representative : [COUNSEL], Solicitor Type of application : Section 48 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Tribunal members : Judge [NAME] of determination and venue : 3 September 2019 at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 16th September 2019
DECISION
Summary of the tribunal’s decision (1) The agreed premiums payable for the new leases are more particularly set out in the valuation agreed by the parties and which is annexed to this decision. Background 1. This is an application made by the applicant leaseholder pursuant to section 48 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development
2 Act 1993 (“the Act”) for a determination of the premium to be paid for the grant of new leases of the property.
2. The parties were able to reach agreement on the terms of the leases as set out below The tribunal’s determination 3. The tribunal determines that the consideration for the lease extensions will be £68,822 for Flat A, £44,764 for Flat C and £46,644 each for Flats D E and F.
4. The terms of the leases are agreed by the parties and set out in the draft lease attached to the letter written to the Tribunal by [NAME] [COMPANY] (reference [NAME]) and dated 12 September 2019 that confirmed agreement between the parties on those lease terms.
Name: Judge Professor Robert Abbey Date: 16th September 2019
Annex: Valuation setting out the agreed calculations
3
4
5
6
7
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 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).
8 Annex Leases valuation
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Repairs and Asbesto…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Decides on Service Charges and Legal Fees
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Tenancy Under Rent Act 1977
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation From Consultation Requirements for Major Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Rent Due to Property Condition Issues
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Costs for New Lease Under Leasehold Reform A…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Assessment for Assured Tenancy: Case Summary
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds HMO Licence Limitation to Four Persons
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Ordered to Pay Third of Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges Administration Charges in Lease Agreement
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 parties agreed on the premiums to be paid for the lease extensions.
- The terms of the leases were agreed upon by the parties.
- The tribunal determined the consideration for the lease extensions for each flat.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal determined the premiums for lease extensions of flats in a residential property.
Who was involved?
The claimant and the respondent were involved in the case.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the valuation provided by the parties and agreed upon the premiums.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The valuation provided by the parties was the central reasoning for the decision.
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 ensure they have a clear valuation for their lease extension.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The valuation provided by the parties was crucial.
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?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
