VadeLab
OtherFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Directions for Collective Enfranchisement Application

Case No.

📌 In brief

This case involves an application for collective enfranchisement where a tenant seeks to acquire the freehold of their property under specific legal provisions. The First-tier Tribunal sets out detailed directions and timelines for both parties to submit documents and respond to each other's statements.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to acquire the freehold of their property if all terms are agreed except for the transfer terms.

Topics

collective enfranchisementleasehold reform

Provisions

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.24

📖 Technical summary

The claimant seeks collective enfranchisement of the freehold under s24 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant seeks to acquire the freehold of a property through collective enfranchisement under s24 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The respondent opposes but agrees with the timeline set by the tribunal.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Other

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AG/OCE/2025/0091 Property :

17 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT] of application : Collective enfranchisement under s24 (1) Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Tribunal member(s) : Judge Dutton Date of Directions : 27 January 2026

DIRECTIONS

The parties may agree between themselves any reasonable change to the dates in these Directions EXCEPT for the date of sending the bundles and the hearing date/s.

Full hearing (date/time): The tribunal will determine the matters on the papers in the week commencing 30 March 2026 unless either party requests a hearing, in which case the tribunal will notify the parties of the hearing date. Inspection (date/time): To be arranged by the tribunal if required

Communicating with the Tribunal • Unless directed otherwise, all communications to the tribunal, including the filing of documents and bundles, should be by email ONLY, attaching a letter in Word format. Emails must be sent to [EMAIL] and all communications must be copied to the other party or parties at the same time. The attachment size limit is 36MB. Larger files should be uploaded to a secure file sharing website and a web link provided.

• If a party does not have email, access to the Internet and/or cannot prepare digital documents, they should contact the case officer about alternative arrangements.

• Documents prepared for the tribunal should be easy to read. If possible, they should be typed and use a font-size of not less than 12.

BACKGROUND • The Applicant seeks to acquire the freehold of the property 17 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE].

• The Applicant asserts that all terms of acquisition have been agreed save for the terms of the transfer and seeks the removal of the stay.

• The Respondent replies indicating that it sees no need to amend the timeline, alleging that the Applicant “hasn’t even tried to negotiate this”

• Either party may seek to remove the stay and accordingly the following directions will apply.

DIRECTIONS 1. By 13 February 2026 the Applicants shall send (by email or post) to the Respondent and to the Tribunal its statement setting out the terms it says have been agreed and its submissions in support of the terms of the proposed transfer, exhibiting same and highlighting the terms in dispute.

2. By 27 February 2026 the Respondent shall send (by email or post) to the Applicant and to the tribunal its statement in response confirming whether the purchase price is agreed and set out the terms of the transfer it proposes with reasons why.

3. By 13 March 2026 the Applicant shall be entitled to make a short reply to the issues.

Paper determination – 4. This case is allocated to the paper track (i.e. determination on the basis of written representations. The tribunal will determine the matter during the week commencing 30 March 2026 on the basis of the document bundles.

5. However, any party may make a request to the tribunal that a hearing should be held. Any such request for a hearing should be made by 20 February 2026, giving an indication of any dates to avoid. The tribunal will then notify the parties of the hearing date. Applications: Applications for further directions, interim orders, variations of existing directions, or a postponement of the final hearing/determination must be made using form Order 1 Non-Compliance with Directions: If any party fails to comply with these directions the Tribunal may in any event determine the issues in dispute on the basis of such information and evidence as is available. If the applicant fails to comply with these directions the tribunal may strike out all or part of their case pursuant to rule 9(3)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 (“the 2013 Rules”). If the respondent fails to comply with these directions the tribunal may bar them from taking any further part in all or part of these proceedings and may determine all issues against it pursuant to rules 9(7) and (8) of the 2013 Rules.

Judge Dutton

27 January 2026

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 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 tenant is entitled to purchase the freehold of their property at a market rate value as determined by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
  • A tenant is entitled to have service charges deemed non-payable if the demand for payment was issued more than 18 months after the relevant costs were incurred.
  • A landlord may obtain dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements if it is reasonable and no prejudice will result to leaseholders.
  • An administration charge imposed by a landlord is not reasonable if it is based on incorrect information provided to the tenant.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal set out procedural directions for the claimant's application for collective enfranchisement.

Who was involved?

A tenant seeking freehold acquisition and a landlord opposing it, with legal representatives for both sides.

How did the court decide, and why?

The tribunal issued procedural directions to ensure timely submission of documents and responses from both parties.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.24 was cited as the legal basis for the application.

What argument mattered most?

The claimant's assertion that all terms of acquisition are agreed except for the transfer terms was central to the case.

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

The decision is procedural and does not determine the merits of the application at this stage.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone seeking collective enfranchisement should follow the tribunal's directions closely to ensure their application progresses smoothly.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The claimant and respondent must submit statements setting out agreed terms and proposed transfer conditions as directed by the tribunal.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Procedural decisions can sometimes be challenged, but typically appeals are reserved for substantive rulings on the merits of the case.

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

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor to navigate the complexities of collective enfranchisement proceedings.

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.