VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Tenant Costs for Lease Extension

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal ruled that a person must pay £5,055.60 in costs to the landlord for a lease extension. The costs include legal and valuation fees and were determined under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993.

⚖️ Legal holding

a person is entitled to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the landlord in connection with a lease extension.

Topics

cost determinationlease extension

Provisions

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.60

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the costs payable by a person for a lease extension.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal decided that a tenant must pay £5,055.60 in costs to the landlord for a lease extension, including legal and valuation fees, under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AN/OC9/2024/0099 Property : 33 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [APPELLANT] Respondent : [redacted] : No appearance Type of application : Determination of costs under section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1998 Tribunal : Judge Adrian Jack Date of decision : 25th November 2024.

DECISION

1. This is an application by a landlord for determination of the costs payable in respect of proceedings in this Tribunal for a lease extension. The respondent’s processor in title on 18th August 2021 served a notice on the applicant seeking a ninety year lease extension. The benefit of the notice was assigned to the respondent, but he did not proceed with the application.

2. By an order of 27th November 2023 made by Deputy District Judge Althaus in the County Court sitting at Central London it was recited that the parties had agreed the terms of a lease extension but that the respondent had

2 failed to complete. It was ordered that the rights and obligations created by service of the notice be discharged, such that the notice was deemed to have been withdrawn at the end of 9th January 2023. The costs of the claim in the County Court were summarily assessed at £12,148.20.

3. This Tribunal on 28th August 2024 gave directions for the determination of the costs payable in connection with the proceedings in this Tribunal. The applicant complied with the directions; the respondent did not engage.

Accordingly, I have determined this matter on the basis that the applicant’s application is not disputed.

4. The applicant has served a statement of costs of Legal Fees - £3,840 (inc. VAT), Valuation Fees - £1,140 (inc. VAT), Land Registry Fees - £64.80 (inc. VAT), and Courier Fees - £10.80 (inc. VAT). This totals £5,055.60. The sums are all supported by invoices. The legal fees do not appear unreasonable (and in any event have not been challenged). In these circumstances I disallow nothing.

DETERMINATION The applicant is entitled to £5,055.60 in costs pursuant to section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1988.

Name: Judge Adrian Jack

Date: 25th November 2024

Appendix Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Section 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 [NAME] 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 [NAME] would be void. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) any costs incurred by a [NAME] in respect of professional services rendered by any person shall only be regarded as

3 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) [NAME] 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) [NAME] shall not be liable under this section for any costs which a party to any proceedings under this Chapter before a leasehold valuation tribunal incurs in connection with the proceedings. (6) In this section “[NAME]”, in relation to a claim by [NAME] 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. 5

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 landlord's costs application was not disputed by the tenant.
  • The landlord provided a detailed statement of costs, including legal, valuation, Land Registry, and courier fees.
  • All the claimed sums were supported by invoices.
  • The legal fees claimed by the landlord were considered reasonable by the Tribunal.
  • The tenant failed to engage with the Tribunal's directions for determining costs.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision determined that the tenant must pay £5,055.60 in costs to the landlord for a lease extension.

Who was involved?

The case involved a landlord and a tenant.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the Leasehold Reform Act 1993, which requires tenants to pay reasonable costs related to lease extensions.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, specifically section 60, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the landlord's compliance with the directions set by the Tribunal and the submission of invoices supporting the costs.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should expect to pay reasonable costs as defined by the Leasehold Reform Act 1993.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Invoices supporting the costs were submitted and considered by the court.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving lease extensions and cost determinations.

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.