First-tier Tribunal Determines Premium for Collective Enfranchisement Order
📌 In brief
In this case, the First-tier Tribunal had to determine the premium for a collective enfranchisement order where the landlord could not be found. The Tribunal decided on the premium based on a valuation report and the remaining term of the lease. The final premium was set at £8,263 for an additional term of 80 years, or £8,160 for 90 years, depending on certain conditions.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a premium for the vesting order of an additional lease term, calculated based on the valuation report and the unexpired term of the lease.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the premium for a collective enfranchisement order involving a missing landlord.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined the premium for a collective enfranchisement order involving a missing landlord. The premium was set at £8,263 for an additional term of 80 years, or £8,160 for 90 years, contingent upon a potential amendment of the vesting order.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AT/OLR/2018/1217 Property : 183 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] :
Respondent: [redacted] successors in title) Representative :
Type of Application : Determination of terms of collective enfranchisement (missing landlord) Tribunal Members : Tribunal Judge Prof R Percival Mr L Jarero BSc, FRICS
Date and venue of Hearing : 8 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 8 January 2019
DECISION
2
Conclusions of the Tribunal 1. The vesting order dated 14 August 2018 vested an additional term of 80 years, rather than 90 years.
2. The premium is £8,263 for a term of 80 years.
3. The premium is £8,160 for a term of 90 years, should the court so amend the vesting order. Introduction 4. The applicant applied in the County Court for a vesting order under Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 in relation to 183 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (“the property”) under claim number E00BF055. The leasehold property is registered at HM Land Registry under title number AGL67158.
5. On 14 August 2018, Deputy District Judge Shelton sitting at the County Court at Brentford ordered that an additional term of 80 years be vested in the applicants; and that the case be transferred to this Tribunal to determine the premium (if any) and rent to be paid consequential on the vesting order. Determination 6. The applicants have provided a valuation report by [NAME], FRICS, of [NAME], dated 29 November 2018. The report indicates that the property is a purpose built two bedroomed ground floor maisonette in a detached block of two self-contained maisonettes, constructed in about 1960. It is situated in a residential area close to Heathrow airport, to the west of Feltham town centre. Mr [NAME] considers that the external condition of the property is in generally good condition, and the interior is in good condition.
7. Mr [NAME] values various improvements to the maisonette over the course of the lease at £8,000.
8. Mr [NAME] gives his general account of the current market in the area, which he describes as static since the end of 2016, with some further slowing of the market, and sliding prices, since that date. He gives details of the sale price achieved by five similar properties in the area.
9. The valuation Mr [NAME] arrives at is a market price of the property in January 2018 as £270,000, ignoring improvements.
3 10. The lease is for a term of 99 years from 24 June 1998, at a peppercorn rent.
11. Mr [NAME] states that he sees no reason to depart from the deferment rate of 5% in Sportelli.
12. Mr [NAME] was unable to find market evidence for leases with a similar unexpired term. He considers various [NAME] graphs. He considers that the [NAME] graph is the most generally appropriate. Consideration of the market now leads him to adjust the Nesbitt figure slightly down to 95%.
13. The valuation for the premium proposed by Mr [NAME] is £8, 194.
14. The Tribunal sees no reason to depart from Mr [NAME] valuation in principle. However, we disagree with his calculation of the existing lease term, which we think is 79.43 years rather than 79.48 years. Our valuation above is based on this approach. Right of appeal 15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
4 20. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Name: Tribunal Judge Professor Richard Percival Date: 8 January 2019
5
First-tier Tribunal: 90 years
Ref AB/LON/00AT/OLR/2018/1217
Valuation Date 18 January 2018
Lease 99 years from 24 June 1998
Unexpired term 79.43 yrs
Ground rent Peppercorn
Deferment rate 5%
[NAME] (freehold to existing lease) 95%
Freehold value £270,000
Long lease value @99% of freehold £267,300
Existing lease value £256,500
Freehold interest
Reversion to freehold value £270,000
PV of £1 in 79.43 years @ 5% 0.02070
£5,589
Proposed
Reversion to freehold value £270,000
PV of £1 in 169.43 years @ 5% 0.000257
£69
Diminution to freehold interest
£5,520
Marriage Value
Proposed interest
Freeholder £69
Tenant £267,300
£267,369
Existing interest
Freeholder £5,589
Tenant £256,500
£262,089
Marriage value
£5,280
Marriage value @ 50%
£2,640
Premium payable
£8,160
6
First-tier Tribunal: 80 years
Ref AB/LON/00AT/OLR/2018/1217
Valuation Date 18 January 2018
Lease 99 years from 24 June 1998
Unexpired term 79.43 yrs
Ground rent Peppercorn
Deferment rate 5%
[NAME] (freehold to existing lease) 95%
Freehold value £270,000
Long lease value @99% of freehold £267,300
Existing lease value £256,500
Freehold interest
Reversion to freehold value £270,000
PV of £1 in 79.43 years @ 5% 0.02070
£5,589
Proposed
Reversion to freehold value £270,000
PV of £1 in 159.43 years @ 5% 0.0004186
£113
Diminution to freehold interest
£5,476
Marriage Value
Proposed interest
Freeholder £113
Tenant £267,300
£267,413
Existing interest
Freeholder £5,589
Tenant £256,500
£262,089
Marriage value
£5,324
Marriage value @ 50%
£2,662
Premium payable
£8,138
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Emergency Measures Approved: Waking Watch and Fire Alarm System
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Enfranchisement Application
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Works to Prevent Water Ingress
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Allows Urgent Repairs Without Statutory Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) RTM Company Entitled to Manage Premises Under Leasehold Reform Act
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 accepted the valuation report provided by the applicant's surveyor as a basis for determining the premium.
- The tribunal agreed with the surveyor's use of a 5% deferment rate.
- The tribunal accepted the surveyor's market valuation of the property at £270,000, ignoring improvements.
- The tribunal determined that the premium for an 80-year term is £8,263.
- The tribunal determined that the premium for a 90-year term is £8,160, should the court amend the vesting order.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal determined the premium for a collective enfranchisement order involving a missing landlord.
Who was involved?
The tenants and the landlord's successors in title were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on a valuation report and the remaining term of the lease.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The valuation report and the remaining term of the lease were the most important factors.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenants.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should obtain a valuation report and consider the remaining term of the lease.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The valuation report and the vesting order were crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, the decision 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 such cases.
