VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Statutory Lease Extension Under 1993 Act

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted a statutory lease extension to a tenant under the 1993 Act, setting the price at £25,663. The decision was made because the landlord could not be located, and the tenant had conducted a thorough search.

⚖️ Legal holding

A qualifying tenant is entitled to a statutory lease extension under the 1993 Act if the landlord cannot be found.

Topics

statutory lease extensionvaluation of lease extension

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.50Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.51

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal determined the price for a statutory lease extension under the 1993 Act.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted a statutory lease extension under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, determining the price to be £25,663. The decision was based on the inability to locate the landlord and the valuation report submitted by the claimant's expert.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2014

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : TR/LON/00AL/OLR/2022/0809 Property :

12(a) [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] [COUNSEL] Solicitors 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 member :

[NAME] Registered Valuer Venue : Remote Date of paper determination : 14 December 2022

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 £25,663. 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 Deputy District Judge Blake sitting at the County Court at Bromley on 7th October 2022.

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 [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME]. He is the qualifying tenant of the ground floor flat referred to as 12(a) [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (“the Property”). The respondent freehold owner is [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME].

5. On 4th November 2021, the applicant issued a Part 8 Claim at the County Court at Bromley 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 respondents after a comprehensive search and enquiries. For this reason it is not reasonably practicable for the applicants to serve a notice pursuant to section 42 of the Act on the respondents.

6. The applicant subsequently applied for a vesting order under section 49(3) of the 1993 Act. The vesting order was granted subject to the determination of this tribunal.

7. The applicant has provided the tribunal with a valuation report prepared by [NAME] [NAME] dated 24 November 2022. 8. [NAME] [NAME] is of the view that the premium to be paid for the statutory lease extension is £25,663.

3 The Determination 9. The tribunal carefully scrutinised the valuation submissions at pages P62- P96 of the bundle and accepts the opinions expressed by the applicants Expert, [NAME] [NAME] in his valuation report dated 24th November 2022.

10.

Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that the premium to be paid in respect of the new lease is £25,663 less the court assessed costs which are still to be determined. These monies to be paid into Court.

11. The Tribunal also approves the draft proposed New Lease included in the bundle at pages P124-162 subject to the inclusion at LR 7 and paragraph 1.1 “Premium”, that the premium is in the sum of £25,663.

12. This matter should now be returned to the County Court sitting at Bromley under Claim Number H01BR411 in order for the final procedures to take place. Valuer Chairman: [NAME] 14th December 2022

📊 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 was unable to find the landlord after a thorough search, making it impractical to serve a notice.
  • The tribunal accepted the valuation report provided by the tenant's expert.
  • The tribunal determined the premium for the new lease to be £25,663.
  • The tribunal approved the draft new lease, with a specific premium amount to be included.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal granted a statutory lease extension to the tenant, setting the price at £25,663.

Who was involved?

The tenant applied for a statutory lease extension, and the landlord could not be located.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the lease extension based on the tenant's inability to locate the landlord and the valuation report.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, specifically sections 50 and 51.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The tenant's inability to locate the landlord and the thorough search conducted by the tenant.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also be able to obtain a statutory lease extension if they cannot locate their landlord.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation report submitted by the tenant's expert was crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.