First-tier Tribunal Grants Statutory Lease Extension When Landlord Cannot Be Found
📌 In brief
When a landlord cannot be found, a tenant can still get a new lease through a special process called a vesting order. In this case, the First-tier Tribunal approved a new lease for the tenant, setting the price at £8,076.
⚖️ Legal holding
Where a landlord cannot be found, a qualifying tenant may obtain a statutory lease extension through a vesting order.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal determined the price for a statutory lease extension in a property where the landlord could not be found.
📜 Headnote Official document
In a case where the landlord could not be found, the First-tier Tribunal granted a statutory lease extension to the tenant, setting the price at £8,076.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2014
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : AB/LON/00AU/OLR/2020/1262 Property : 376A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COUNSEL] [COUNSEL] LLP Respondent: [redacted] [RESPONDENT] : 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] [NAME] : Remote Date of paper determination : 27th April 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 £8,076. 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 Lightman sitting at the County Court at Central London on 24th June 2020.
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]. They are the qualifying tenant of the first and second floor maisonette 376 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the Property”). The respondent freehold owners are [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT].
5. On 29th February 2020, the applicant issued a Part 8 Claim at the County Court at Central London 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 Mr [NAME] of [COMPANY] dated 18th March 2022.
8. Mr [NAME] is of the view that the premium to be paid for the statutory lease extension is £8,145.
3 The Determination 9. The tribunal accepts the opinions expressed by Mr [NAME] in his valuation report dated 18th March 2022 save that: (i) The valuation date adopted by Mr [NAME] in his premium calculation at page 140 of the bundle is 24th June 2020. The tribunal note that the date of issue of the Part 8 claim is 29th February 2020. The valuation date to be adopted in accordance with prescribed procedure under the Act provisions is the date of the application to Court for a vesting order. The application date is not known but the witness statements submitted with the application are dated 27th February 2020 so the tribunal has taken the issue date as the relevant date for premium valuation. (ii) The revised valuation date adopted by the tribunal results in a slightly longer unexpired lease length at valuation date of 81.15 years compared to the 80.87 years used by Mr [NAME] in his calculation.
10. The adjusted calculation has resulted in a premium payable of £8,076. This premium is in return for the grant of a new lease on statutory terms.
11.
Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that the premium to be paid in respect of the new lease is £8,076 less the court assessed costs which are still to be determined. These monies to be paid into Court.
12. The Tribunal also approves the draft proposed Deed of Surrender and Regrant of lease included in the bundle at pages P161-P170 subject to the inclusion at paragraph 1.5 “Premium”, that the premium is in the sum of £8,076.
13. This matter should now be returned to the County Court sitting at Central London under Claim Number G00CL594 in order for the final procedures to take place. Valuer Chairman: [NAME] 27th April 2022
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Secures Statutory Lease Extension Despite Missing Landlord
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Statutory Lease Extension Under 1993 Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Secures Statutory Lease Extension Despite Unlocatable Landlord
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Statutory Lease Extension to Tenant
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Granted Statutory Lease Extension Despite Untraceable Landlord
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freehold Purchase Sum Set at £1 Due to Untraceable Landlord
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Statutory Lease Extension Price When Landlor…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Lease Extension Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Price and Rules on Rents
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Statutory Lease Extension Granted Where Landlord Cannot Be Found
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Lease Extension Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Freehold Purchase Price at £37,988
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 applicant was a qualifying tenant of the maisonette, allowing them to seek a lease extension.
- The landlord's whereabouts could not be found, making it impractical to serve a notice.
- The court can make a vesting order when a landlord cannot be found.
- The tribunal determined the premium for the new lease to be £8,076.
- The tribunal approved the draft Deed of Surrender and Regrant of lease.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided to grant a statutory lease extension to the tenant.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord, though the landlord could not be found.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the tenant's inability to locate the landlord and the statutory requirements.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 50 and 51 of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The tenant's comprehensive search for the landlord and the inability to serve a notice.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
For the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation can seek a statutory lease extension if they cannot find their landlord.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The tenant's witness statements and a valuation report.
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?
Yes, it is recommended to consult a solicitor for such cases.
