First-tier Tribunal Determines Reasonable Costs Under 1993 Act

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :

CAM/00KF/OLR/2023/0151

Property : [ADDRESS], Westcliff on Sea, Essex, [POSTCODE] Applicant :

[redacted] : [NAME] First Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] as personal representative of the estate of [NAME] by : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] Type of application : A determination of reasonable costs under section 60(1) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Tribunal member : Judge Bernadette MacQueen Date of Decision : 18 September 2025

DECISION

Decision 1. The Tribunal determines that the amount of costs payable by the Applicant under section 60(1) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 are: Legal Fees (inclusive of VAT)

£2,686.98 Valuation Fees (inclusive of VAT) £1,020.00 Agreed Disbursements

£ 110.24

2 The Application 2. This is an application made under section 60(1) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (the “1993 Act”) concerning costs payable as a result of the Applicant’s application to seek a new lease for [NAME] known as [ADDRESS], Westcliff on Sea, Essex, [POSTCODE] ([NAME]). Background 3. [NAME] was an unregistered freehold property owned by [NAME]’s late wife [NAME] and her sister [NAME], also known as [NAME].

4. By a Notice of Claim dated 19 April 2023, the Applicant sought to exercise the right to acquire a new lease of [NAME] under section 42 of the 1993 Act. The Applicant proposed to pay the premium for the grant of a new lease of £5,100. In a Counter Notice dated 23 June 2023, the Applicant’s right to the grant of a new lease was accepted but the proposed premium was not accepted, and instead a premium of £9,500 was claimed.

5. In emails dated 27 May 2025, the parties confirmed that the terms of the acquisition were agreed and that the only matter outstanding was the section 60 costs. For the avoidance of doubt, the application before the Tribunal for these costs is made by the first respondent only (hereafter called the Respondent). No application has been received from [NAME], the [NAME] Respondent.

6. The Respondent sought costs of £10,832.00 for legal and valuers fees, VAT of £2,166,60 and disbursements of £110.24.

7. The Applicant accepted legal and valuers fees of £1,494.16, VAT of £298.83 and disbursements of £110.24.

8. Directions were issued by the Tribunal on 6 June 2025 and, in accordance with the directions, the parties provided a bundle of documents which consisted of 44 pages. At pages 27 to 38 the parties had completed a schedule of costs (the Schedule) which set out the costs claimed by the Respondent and the Applicant’s response. The Schedule was divided into four sections namely: i. 19 April 2023 to 28 August 2024 ii. 11 September 2024 to 4 February 2025 iii. 4 February 2025 to 29 May 2025 iv. Cost of Preparing Schedule of Costs

3 9. Parties did not object to this matter being determined on the papers without a hearing. The Tribunal found that this was appropriate and therefore determined this matter without a hearing by considering the documents provided within the bundle. Matters Agreed Between the Parties Fee Earners 10. The Respondent confirmed that work was completed by a Grade A solicitor at an hourly rate of £290 plus VAT, and two Grade D paralegal fee earners each at an hourly rate of £120 plus VAT. These hourly rates were accepted by the Applicant.

11. The following costs were agreed between the parties: Item Description Agreed Amount 3. [NAME]: Telephone: 0:10 [NAME]: Emails/letters 0:15 Telephone:0.05 £48.33 £30.00 £10.00

4. Attendance and Schedule of work done on documents: Grade A – Counter Notice 0:35; Grade A – email to [NAME] to explain contents of Counter notice and answer questions re notice Grade A – peruse report of surveyor and correspondence

£169.17

£193.33

£48.33

4 regarding counter notice: 0:10 5 Attendance and Schedule of work done on Documents: Grade A Drafting changes to draft lease:0:25 £120.83 6 Call in from [NAME] to discuss her participation: 0:15 £72.50 7 Disbursements: Valuers Fees VAT HMLR Fees Postage and Fedex Fees

£850 £170 £39 £71.24

12. The following costs were disputed:

Item Description Amount Claimed by Respondent Amount Accepted by Applicant Applicant’s response Respondent’s Reply 2 19 April 2023 to 28 August 2024. [NAME]: 3:30 £1,015 £0 Unclear time entries and no breakdown of time spent; excessive Each email is costed in 5 minutes units at £24.17 per unit and any linked work in connection with the email such as drafting and file review was costed in 5

5 minute units at £24.17 per unit. Email was main method of communication as client and [NAME] Respondent is based in Israel 4 Email to [NAME] to explain contents of Counter notice and answer questions re notice: 0:40

Brief to Counsel to advise on whether one landlord could file a counter notice on behalf of joint landlord:015

£193.33

£72.50

£0

£0

Excessive; why is there a further letter being sent to the Respondent solicitor. The counter notice is a standard document and there are no proposals for the terms of the lease to be varied. No legal basis for counsel fees under the grounds for section 60.

This relates to reasonable costs of an investigation on service of the counter notice by 1 freeholder alone. Counsel’s advice required to support the position that the counter notice needed to be served on behalf of both freeholders to ten grant the lease under the

6

[NAME]: email to [NAME] A: updates to client:0:50

Attendances: [NAME] attending client on 30 June 2023 prior to service of counter notice to advise on counter notice and obtain instructions:0:35

£30.00

£250.67

£169.17

£0

£0

£0

Unclear time entries as to what these emails relates to.

Unclear time entries and no breakdown of time spent; excessive. Time charges appear duplicated; as per letter to [NAME] to obtain authority to service counter notice:0:15

statutory procedure 5 (2) From 11 September 2024 to 2 February 2025: Grade A Emails: 3:05

£894

£0

Unclear time and no breakdown of time spent; excessive

Each email costed in 5 minutes units at £24.17 per unit and any linked work in connection with the email are costed in 5

7

Detailed letter to Tribunal requesting directions

Letter to Tribunal to update Tribunal 0:30

Research Researching procedure on grant in estate of [NAME] 0:45

£555.83

£145.00

£217.50

£0

£0

£0

No legal basis for recovery of fees in connection with the Tribunal proceedings under section 60

No legal basis for recovery of fees in connection with the Tribunal proceedings under section 60 No legal basis for recovery of fees in connection with research under section 60(1) (a) to (c) minute units at £24.17 per unit.

Reasonable costs of and incidental to the grant of a new lease. [NAME]’s participate was essential to ensure the lease could be granted by both landlords. [NAME] was uncooperative and therefore assistance of Tribunal needed. The Respondent claims costs in relation to [NAME]’s participation in the proceedings and these costs relate to the grant of the Lease as the lease could not be granted without her involvement. Additionally researching procedure as to the grant of Letters of Administration in the Estate of [NAME] is reasonable and incidental to the grant of the Lease as out

8

Research as to preventing a vesting order by the Applicant if [NAME] did not come on record:0:20

File Review Review of file to update client on issues: 0:30

£96.67

£145.00

£0

£0

No legal basis for recovery of fees in connection with such research under section 60(1) (a) to (c)

No legal basis for recovery of fees in connection with file clint’s description was a Personal Representative in the Estate of [NAME] in the lease and therefore these research costs and reasonable and incidental to the grant of the Lease and are claimed under section 60.

As above

As above

Grant of letters of

9

Review file to check letters to Probate Registry: 0:20

£96.67

£0

review under section 60(1) (a) to (c)

No legal basis for recovery of fees in connection with such file reviews under section 60(1) (a) to (c)

administration are crucial to the grant of the Lease and otherwise the Respondent cannot prove authority to represent the estate therefore this item is chargeable. 6 (3) From 4 February 2025 to 29 May 2025 Grade A: Emails and letter 2:30

Telephone Calls:0:40

£720

£193.33

£0

£0

Unclear time and no breakdown of time spent and what the emails and letter related to; excessive.

Unclear time and no breakdown of time spent and what the telephone calls related to; excessive. No legal basis for recovery of

Each email is costed in 5 minutes units at £24.17 per unit and any linked work in connection with the email is costed in 5 minute units at £24.17 per unit.

10 Attendance and Schedule of work done on Documents Drafting Lond letter to tribunal…terms of lease: 0:30

File Review Review file to service papers on [NAME]:0:35

Further review of file to check compliance with Tribunal order:1:45

Review file to inform client and [NAME] that lease terms can be agreed: 0:30

£145

£169.17

£507.50

£145.00

£0

£0

£0

£0

fees in connection with the Tribunal Proceedings under section 60

Unclear time and no breakdown of time spent and what papers are being served; excessive

No legal basis for recovery of fees in connection with the Tribunal Proceedings under section 60 No legal basis for recovery of fees in connection with such review under section 60(1) (a) to (c).

No legal basis for recovery of fees in Drafting letter to the Tribunal, checking compliance with Tribunal order, reviewing with client of lease terms, reviewing file to confirm terms of acquisition without production of original conveyance, perusal of file to check that lease terms agreed or whether lease can include production of the conveyance. In respect of these costs these are all reasonable and incidental to the grant of the Lease as [NAME]’s participation was essential to the drafting of the lease. Furthermore the applicant had requested production of the original conveyance as part of the terms of the lease and the original conveyance was not available at HM land Registry. Further checking progress of

11 File review to confirm that lease can be confirmed as agreed: 1:00

Final review file to confirm terms of acquisition without production of original conveyance or original deed 1:00

Perusal. Peruse of file to check if we can confirm lease terms agreed and whether lease to include production of the conveyance no longer available: 1:00

Attendances. Call from client 0:15

£290

£290

£290

£0

£0

£0

connection with such file reviews under section 60(1) (a) to (c). No legal basis for recovery of fees in connection with such file reviews under section 60(1) (a) to (c).

No legal basis for recovery of fees in connection with such file perusal under section 60(1) (a) to (c).

Unclear time and no breakdown of time spent and what the call related to; excessive Unclear time and no breakdown of time spent and what the application for Letter of Administration was necessary to describe our client correctly in the lease as Personal Representative in his late wife’s estate.

An order was made by the Tribunal for service of documents. There were 7 units of File Review costed in 5 minutes at £24.17 per unit.

12

Call from [NAME]:0:15

Call to client by zoom:0:25

£72.50

£72.50

£120.83

£0

£0

£0

call related to; excessive

Unclear time and no breakdown of time spent and what the call related to; excessive

8 (4) Cost of preparing Schedule of Costs excluding VAT Grade A 6 hours Grade D 5 hours

£2,340 VAT £468

£0

No legal basis for recovery of fees in connection with FTT proceedings under section 60(1)(a) to(c) The Respondent seeks the costs of recovering the schedule of costs of application on the basis that these costs reasonably incurred and the breakdown had to be provided in sufficient detail 9 Further costs of application up to hearing to be assessed and provided once No amount claimed £0 No legal basis for recovery of fees in connection with Tribunal The Respondent seeks the costs of recovering the schedule of costs of application on

13 bundles prepared proceedings under section 60(1)(a) to(c) the basis that these costs reasonably incurred and the breakdown had to be provided in sufficient detail

The Following Fees were Partially Accepted:

Item Description Amount Claimed by Respondent Amount accepted by Applicant Applicant’s response Respondent’s reply 4 Letter to [NAME] to obtain authority to serve counter notice

Reviewing file for email to [NAME] to seek confirmation as to settlement figure and £72.50

£120.83 £29.00

£14.50 Excessive: a letter requesting authority to serve a counter notice and explain contents would take no more than 10 minutes

Excessive: e mail to Respondent solicitor seeking confirmation of settlement would take no more [NAME] is elderly and uncooperative, refusing to disclose her address or whether she would instruct solicitors. Therefore the letter had to be carefully drafted to explain the position to her in easy to understand terms.

An email was sent to the Co- Respondent’s son as the Co- Respondent was not represented and was

14 whether [NAME] appoint an attorney:0:25 than 5 minutes

uncooperative in terms of disclosing her whereabouts. The letter to her son was to explain Counter Notice and therefore, had to be carefully drafted so that the Counter Notice could be explained to [NAME] correctly. The time is not excessive for this type of work. 5 (2) From 11 September 2024 to 2 February 2025: Email to Applicant to discuss [NAME]’s participation in the proceedings: 0:15

£72.50

£14.50

Excessive; email to Respondent solicitor seeking confirmation of participation would take no more than 5 minutes.

6 (3) From 4 February 2025 to 29 May 2025

15

Email to applicant solicitor re no need to produce original documents: 0:15 Further review of file and work out outstanding issues re title and progress of letters of administration and checking if lease is agreed: 0:40 £72.50

£193.33 £14.50

£72.50 Excessive: email to Respondent solicitor would take no more than 5 minutes

No legal basis for recovery of fees in connection with such file reviews under section 60(1) (a) to (c). Allow 15 minutes for checking lease.

The Respondent’s Position – Legal Costs 13. At pages 5 to 10 of the bundle, the Respondent set out the background and what the Respondent described as unusual features of the case. The Respondent described this as including the difficulty with contacting the [NAME] Respondent, and how contact was made through the [NAME] Respondent’s son, [NAME]. For the period 19 April 2023 to 28 August 2024, the Respondent detailed the work involved in determining whether the [NAME] Respondent would be a participating party in the proceedings; whether she was going to instruct a solicitor to assist with completing the lease extension; and whether she would accept the terms of the Lease. The Respondent stated that during the proceedings, [NAME] had emigrated to Israel and the Respondent was required to serve papers on her there. The Respondent further stated that numerous difficulties were encountered finding contact details to ascertain an address for service.

14. At pages 7 to 9 of the bundle, the Respondent set out the work completed for the period 11 September 2024 to 4 February 2025. Specifically, the Respondent detailed work that related to establishing the representation and participation of the [NAME] Respondent in the proceedings. It was the Respondent’s position

16 that this resulted in additional work to contact the Tribunal for directions as well as the need for correspondence with the Land Registry to ascertain the documents that had to be lodged for the first registration of the Applicant’s lease.

15. At pages 9 to 10 of the bundle, the Respondent set out the work that was completed for the period 4 February 2025 to 29 May 2025. The Respondent stated that this included updated Letters of Administration in the Estate of [NAME] (deceased), and an abstract of the freehold title. The Respondent submitted that the costs in relation to this work were relevant costs as they related to the terms of the Lease. Further, the Respondent submitted that without the work on the title of the landlord, the Lease could not be completed. The Applicant’s Case 16. The Applicant set out her reply to the Respondent’s costs within the Schedule (pages 27 to 38 of the Bundle). The Schedule is reproduced in this decision (above). Respondent’s Reply 17. The Respondent provided a reply to the disputed items at pages 40 to 42 and 44 of the bundle. So that these comments can be considered alongside the item to which they relate, the Tribunal has summarised the reply in the column marked “Respondent’s Reply in the Schedule (above). The Law – Section 60 Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 18. Section 60 provides as follows: 60.— Costs incurred in connection with new lease to be paid by tenant.

(1) Where a notice is given under section 42, then (subject to the provisions of this section) the tenant by whom it is given shall be liable, to the extent that they have been incurred by any relevant person in pursuance of the notice, for the reasonable costs of and incidental to any of the following matters, namely— (a) any investigation reasonably undertaken of the tenant's right to a new lease; (b) any valuation of the tenant's flat obtained for the purpose of fixing the premium or any other amount payable by virtue of Schedule 13 in connection with the grant of a new lease under section 56; (c) the grant of a new lease under that section; but this subsection shall not apply to any costs if on a sale made voluntarily a stipulation that they were to be borne by the purchaser would be void.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) any costs incurred by a relevant person in respect of professional services rendered by any person shall only

17 be regarded as reasonable if and to the extent that costs in respect of such services might reasonably be expected to have been incurred by him if the circumstances had been such that he was personally liable for all such costs.

(3) Where by virtue of any provision of this Chapter the tenant's notice ceases to have effect, or is deemed to have been withdrawn, at any time, then (subject to subsection (4)) the tenant's liability under this section for costs incurred by any person shall be a liability for costs incurred by him down to that time.

(4) A tenant shall not be liable for any costs under this section if the tenant's notice ceases to have effect by virtue of section 47(1) or 55(2).

(5) A tenant shall not be liable under this section for any costs which a party to any proceedings under this Chapter before the appropriate tribunal incurs in connection with the proceedings.

(6) In this section “relevant person” , in relation to a claim by a tenant under this Chapter, means the landlord for the purposes of this Chapter, any other landlord (as defined by section 40(4)) or any third party to the tenant's lease.

Tribunal Decision 19. There was no dispute between the parties as to the hourly rates of the fee earners (item 1 of the Schedule). The Tribunal accepted that the hourly rates charged by the fee earners were reasonable. Period 19 April 2023 to 28 August 2024 – Amounts Allowed 20. The Tribunal considered the amounts claimed by the Respondent in the Schedule. The Tribunal accepted that the telephone call, emails and letters as set out at item 3 of the Respondent’s Schedule (£48.33, £30 and £10) were reasonable, and noted that these costs were not disputed by the Applicant. The Tribunal also allowed the cost of drafting the counter notice by a [NAME] at a charge of £169.17. Additionally. the Tribunal allowed the cost of £48.33 for a [NAME] to peruse the report of the surveyor and correspondence regarding the counter notice. Further the Tribunal found that the charge of £72.50 for work to the letter to [NAME] to obtain authority to serve the counter notice was reasonable. Whilst the Tribunal noted the Applicant’s position that 15 minutes of chargeable time for this may ordinarily be seen as excessive, the Tribunal accepted the Respondent’s submission that in the circumstances of this case the letter required additional time.

21. The Tribunal also allowed the charge of £193.33 for work to complete an email to the [NAME] Respondent’s son and found that this was reasonable. The Tribunal noted that this letter had to be sent given the difficulties with contacting the [NAME] Respondent, which was required and necessary in

18 pursuance of the notice to grant the new lease. Further, the Tribunal accepted the charge of £120.83 for work completed on an email to [NAME]. This email sought confirmation of the settlement figure and sought to clarify whether [NAME] would appoint an attorney. Whilst the Applicant submitted that they would have expected no more than 5 minutes of chargeable time for this work, the Tribunal accepted the position of the Respondent that 25 minutes of time (£120.83) was reasonable given the difficulty with communication on the facts of this case.

22. Finally, the Tribunal accepted as reasonable the charge of £169.17 for the work on 30 June 2023 which was described as advising the Respondent on the counter notice and obtaining instructions. The Tribunal did not accept the Applicant’s position that this was a duplicate entry. Period 19 April 2023 to 28 August 2024 – Amounts Disallowed 23. The Tribunal did not accept the Respondent’s charge at item 2 of the Schedule (page 27 of the bundle) of £1,015 for 3 hours 30 minutes of time to send emails. The Respondent set out at pages 5 to 7 of the bundle the work completed, specifically the work required to contact the [NAME] Respondent; however, the Tribunal has already allowed reasonable time, as set out within the previous paragraphs, for emails that the Tribunal considered were within the scope of section 60 of the 1993 Act.

24. The Tribunal did not allow £72.50 for a brief to Counsel to be drafted. The Tribunal did not find that this fell within Section 60 of the 1993 Act. Further, and in any event, the Tribunal was not satisfied by the Respondent’s explanation that this charge should fall to the Applicant.

25. The Tribunal disallowed the charge of £30 for an email sent by a [NAME] to [NAME]. The Tribunal has already allowed £30 for a [NAME]’s emails/letters and has not been provided with an explanation as to why a further £30 should be allowed. Additionally, the Tribunal did not allow £250.67 for a file review by a [NAME]. The Tribunal has allowed time in the previous paragraphs for work that falls within section 60 of the 1993 Act. Period 11 September 2024 to 2 February 2025 – Amounts Allowed 26. The Applicant has not disputed the charge of £120.83 for drafting changes to the lease. The Tribunal accepted that this charge was reasonable.

27. The Tribunal did not allow £894 for emails sent by a [NAME] for this period and instead allowed £193.33. The Tribunal found this to be a reasonable amount based on the explanation that the Respondent gave for the work completed at page 40 of the bundle. The Tribunal also took into account the time it has allowed already for sending emails. Further, the Tribunal allowed £217.50 in relation to preparation of the lease in light of the issues that the Respondent set out with the title to [NAME].

19 28. The Applicant disputed the charge of £72.50 for work described as an email to the Applicant to discuss [NAME]’s participation in the proceedings. The Applicant submitted that £14.50 was reasonable as the work would take no more than 5 minutes. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent’s position and found that a charge of £72.50 for this work was not excessive based on the issues within this case. Period 11 September 2024 to 2 February 2025 – Amounts Disallowed 29. The Tribunal did not accept the charges in relation to work with the Probate Registry, the research into a vesting order, or the work researching the procedure on a grant in the estate of [NAME]. Further, the Tribunal did not accept the file review and update to client in relation to these matters. The Tribunal found that this work was outside the scope of section 60 of the 1993 Act.

30. The Tribunal did not accept that the communication with the Tribunal was payable under section 60 and disallowed the amount charged for this work. 4 February 2025 to 27 May 2025 – Amounts Allowed 31. The Applicant did not dispute the charge of £72.50 for time spent on a call from [NAME] to discuss her participation in the hearing. The Tribunal found this charge reasonable. Further, the Applicant partially accepted the charge for an email to the Applicant’s solicitor regarding the need to produce original documents. The Applicant’s position was that no more than 5 minutes should be allowed rather than the 15 minutes that the Respondent had charged. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent’s position that 15 minutes (£72.50) was a reasonable charge for an email of this nature.

32. The Respondent claimed £193.33 for work to review the file and outstanding issues regarding the title and checking the lease. The Applicant accepted that 15 minutes of this time was payable under section 60 of the 1993 Act for checking the lease. The Tribunal accepted the Applicant’s position as to the work which fell within section 60 of the 1993 Act, but found that £193.33 was a reasonable charge for this work. 4 February 2025 to 27 May 2025 – Amounts Disallowed 33. The Tribunal did not accept 2 hours 30 minutes for emails and letters, and 40 minutes for telephone calls. The Tribunal was not satisfied on the basis of the information provided that this was reasonable. Further the Tribunal did not accept 35 minutes of work (£169.17) to review the file to serve papers on [NAME]. Further the Tribunal did not accept the 25 minutes Zoom call (£120.83) to the Respondent, the £72.50 charge for a call from the Respondent or the £72.50 call from [NAME]. The Tribunal did not accept that this fell within section 60 of the 1993 Act, and in any event the Tribunal did not find that this was a reasonable amount of time for the Applicant to be responsible for paying.

20 34. At item 6 of the Schedule (Pages 34 and 35 of the bundle), the Respondent claimed 3 hours of work at £290 per hour as follows: (a) file review to confirm the lease can be agreed; (b) file review to confirm terms of acquisition without production of original conveyance or original deed; (c) perusal of file to check if lease terms are agreed and whether the lease is to include production of the conveyance which was no longer available. The Tribunal did not accept that this total charge of £870 was payable as not all of the work fell within section 60 of the 1993 Act. Instead, the Tribunal allowed £435 for work to confirm that the terms of the lease could be agreed. In reaching this decision, the Tribunal took into account the totality of the work it had already allowed so as to ensure that the overall charge was reasonable.

35. As set out above, the Tribunal disallowed the work in connection with writing to the Tribunal as this did not fall within section 60 of the 1993 Act. Valuer’s Fees and Disbursements 36. The Valuer’s Fees and disbursements claimed at heading 7 of the Respondent’s Schedule (page 10) were agreed between the parties. The Tribunal found that these charges were reasonable. Costs of Preparing Schedule of Costs 37. The Tribunal disallowed the costs that the Respondent claimed under heading 8 of the Respondent’s Schedule, namely £2,340 plus VAT of £468 for preparing a schedule of costs. This work did not fall under section 60 of the 1993 Act.

38. Section 60(3) provides as follows: “where by virtue of any provision of this chapter the tenant’s notice ceases to have effect, or deemed to have been withdrawn, at any time, then (subject to subsection (4)) the tenant’s liability under this section for costs incurred by any person shall be a liability for costs incurred by him down to that time” Further, Section 60(5) provides: “A tenant shall not be liable under this section for any costs which a party to any proceedings under this Chapter before the appropriate tribunal incurs in connection with the proceedings.”

Amount Allowed 39. The Tribunal therefore allows the following charges: Period 19 April 2023 to 28 August 2024

21 Item Amount Allowed Telephone (Grade A) £48.33 Email/Letters (Grade D) £30.00 Telephone (Grade D) £10.00 Drafting (Grade A) Counter Notice £169.17 Letter to [NAME] to obtain authority to serve Counter Notice £72.50 Email to [NAME] to explain contents of Counter Notice and answer questions re notice £193.33 Perusal of surveyor and correspondence regarding counter notice (Grade A) £48.33 Reviewing file for email to [NAME] to seek confirmation as to settlement figures and whether [NAME] would appoint an attorney (Grade A) £120.83 Obtaining instructions from client on counter notice (30 June 2023) £169.17

Period 11 September 2024 to 2 February 2025 Item Amount Allowed Emails Grade A (4o minutes) £193.33 Attendance and Schedule of work done on Documents: Drafting changes to lease (Grade A) £120.83 Email to Applicant to discuss [NAME]’s participation in the proceedings £72.50

22 Work to ensure new lease can be granted £217.50

4 February 2025 to 27 May 2025 Call in from [NAME] to discuss her participation £72.50 Email to applicant solicitor re no need to produce original documents £72.50 Checking lease is agreed £193.33 Confirming terms of lease £435.00

Disbursements: Item Amount Valuer Fee £850

HMLR fees £39 Postage and Fedex fees £71.24

40. The Tribunal therefore allows the following:

Legal Fees (inclusive of VAT)

£ 110.24

Name: Judge Bernadette MacQueen

Date: 18 September 2025

23

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 [NAME]. 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, [NAME] and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] 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).