First-tier Tribunal Determines Statutory Lease Extension Price When Landlord Missing

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2014

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BC/OLR/2018/1404 Property : 11B [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicants :

[redacted] : [COUNSEL] [NAME] [COUNSEL] and [RESPONDENT] Respondent : [redacted] : Not applicable (missing landlord) Type of application : Application under sections 50 and 51 of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Tribunal members : [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of paper determination : 18th December 2018

DECISION

2 Decisions of the Tribunal (1) The Tribunal determines that the price to be paid by the applicant for the new lease on statutory terms is £21,185. The Background 1. This is an application under section 50 and 50(1) of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”) pursuant to an order made by District Judge Andrew Dodsworth, sitting at the County Court at Romford on 17th July 2018.

2. Sections 50 and 50(1) of the 1993 Act concerns claims for a statutory lease extension where the relevant landlord cannot be found. It enables the court to make a vesting order in respect of any interests of the landlord which are liable to acquisition.

3. Under section 51 of the 1993 Act, the role of the Tribunal is to determine the appropriate sum to be paid into court in respect of the landlord’s interests.

4. The applicant in this matter is [APPELLANT] [NAME]. He is the qualifying tenant of [ADDRESS] Essex (“the Property”). The respondent freehold owner is [APPELLANT].

5. On 15th February 2018, the applicant issued a Part 8 Claim at the County Court at Romford for an order pursuant to section 50(1) of the 1993 Act seeking a new lease in the Property. The applicant has been unable to ascertain the whereabouts of the respondent and was therefore unable to serve a notice on him pursuant to section 42 of the 1993 Act.

6. The applicant has provided the tribunal with a valuation report prepared by Mr [NAME] dated 1st October 2018.

7. Mr [NAME] is of the view that the premium to be paid for the freehold interest is £15,724. The Determination 8. The Tribunal accepts the opinions expressed by Mr [NAME] in his valuation report dated 1st October 2018 save that: (i) In respect of [ADDRESS], having regard to the various comparables provided; to the size and condition of the property; and to the fact that the landlord is absent, the Tribunal determines

3 that the value of the long lease is £285,800. This is based upon an average value per £/m deduced from the sale transactions [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS]. (ii) The unenfranchiseable relativity taken from the Savills 2015 graph is 85%. The market evidence presented by Mr [NAME] in accordance with the [NAME] guidance evidences a relativity of 92.2%. The tribunal has taken the [ADDRESS] transaction with some 70 years unexpired, adjusted for Act rights and placed this against the notional freehold value of £250,000 offered by the Expert. This produces a relativity of 88.2%. The tribunal has adopted this relativity rather than the higher figure proposed by Mr [NAME]. It is more closely aligned to the Savills 2015 data and reflects a lease length comparable to the subject.

9. The adjusted calculation has resulted in premium of £21,185 A copy of the Tribunal’s valuation is attached to this decision. This premium is in return for the grant of a new lease on statutory terms.

10.

Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that the premium to be paid in respect of the new lease for [ADDRESS] Essex is £21,185. These monies to be paid into Court.

11. This matter should now be returned to the County Court sitting at Romford under Claim Number E00RM322 in order for the final procedures to take place. [NAME] 18th December 2018

4

Premium valuation