VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Reduces Costs for Lease Extensions

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal reduced the costs that tenants had to pay to the landlord for extending their leases. The decision was made on 9 January 2020 by Judge Tagliavini.

⚖️ Legal holding

The costs payable for lease extension applications must be reasonable and not excessive.

Topics

lease extensioncosts

Provisions

Leasehold Reform & Urban Development Act 1993

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal reduced the costs payable by the tenants to the landlord for lease extension applications.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) reduced the costs payable by tenants to the landlord for lease extension applications under the Leasehold Reform & Urban Development Act 1993. The decision was made on 9 January 2020 by Judge Tagliavini.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : LON/00AS/OC9/2019/0220 Property : 11A & 11B [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicants :

[redacted] :

[COUNSEL]

Respondents : [redacted] : [NAME] of Application : Section 60 costs Tribunal Members : Judge Tagliavini Mr. P Roberts Dip Arch, RIBA

Date and venue of (paper) hearing

: 8 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of Decision

: 9 January 2020

_____________________________________________________________________ DECISION _____________________________________________________________________

2

Decisions of the tribunal

I The tribunal determines that the costs payable by the applicants to the respondent are £3763.20 (inclusive of VAT) and which includes the sum of £1500 for the surveyor’s fees and 19.20 in disbursements. _________________________________________________

The application

1. This is an applicant by the respondent landlord seeking the payment of costs under the provisions of the Leasehold Reform & Urban Development Act 1993 (the 1993 Act). The substantive application was made in respect of a lease extension of the two subject properties, which comprise two flats with one each on the first and second floors of a three storey mid terraced building with a commercial unit on the ground floor.

The respondent’s evidence

2. In accordance with the tribunal’s directions dated 24 October 2019 the respondent submitted a schedule of cost claiming legal costs of £6600 (inclusive of VAT); surveyors fees of £1,500 and disbursements in the sum of 19.20. The respondent provided the tribunal with an indexed and paginated bundle of documents for the hearing which included the supporting invoices for the legal fees claimed and a copy of the valuation report(s). The legal fees claimed were on the basis of work carried out by a [NAME] at the hourly rate of £220.

The applicant’s evidence

3. The applicants also submitted a schedule commenting upon the costs claimed by the respondent and in which it was asserted that legal costs in the sum of £1,779.00 (plus VAT) are payable together with the sums of £1,500 for the surveyor’s fees and £19.20 in disbursements.

4. The applicants did not seek to dispute either the use of [NAME] or the hourly rate charged. However, the time taken by the fee earner to take and carry out instructions in this unexceptional transaction were challenged as being excessive. Further, the applicants asserted that the fees charged for work on documents for the tribunal and listing questionnaires were not payable under the provisions of section 60 of the 1993 Act and therefore should be omitted.

The tribunal’s decision and reasons

5. As neither party requested an oral hearing the tribunal determined this application on the documents provided by the parties. Having had

3 regard to the surveyor’s report(s) dated 19 February 2019 the tribunal is of the view that this application to extend the leases of the subject properties, concerned two uncomplicated transactions. The tribunal recognises that each application would be required to be checked separately although it does consider that there would be some overlap between the two properties and transactions.

6. In the absence of any particular identified difficulty arising from this application for lease extensions, the tribunal considers that the time spent by the respondent’s solicitor to be excessive in parts and non- chargeable in others under the provisions of the 1993 Act. Therefore, using the numbering system adopted by the respondent and expanded upon by the applicants in their schedule, the tribunal allows the following costs:

1.

£220

2.

£110

3. to 7. £880

8.1

£220

8.2

£220

8.3

£0

8.4

£0

8.5

£220

Total: £1870 plus VAT @ 20% (£374) = £2244

£2244

9.

£1500 (surveyor’s fee)

10.

£19.20 (disbursements

Grand total: £3763.20

7. Therefore, the tribunal finds that the total costs payable by the applicant to the respondent is £3,763.20.

Signed: Judge Tagliavini

Dated: 9 January 2020

📊 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 tribunal accepted the surveyor's fees as claimed by the respondent.
  • The tribunal found that the lease extension applications were uncomplicated transactions.
  • The tribunal found that each application needed separate checking, but there would be some overlap.
  • The tribunal allowed specific legal costs for certain items, totaling £1870 plus VAT.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tribunal rejected the respondent's claim for legal costs related to work on documents for the tribunal.
  • The tribunal rejected the respondent's claim for legal costs related to listing questionnaires.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal reduced the costs payable by the tenants to the landlord for lease extension applications.

Who was involved?

Tenants and a landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the costs claimed by the landlord were excessive and reduced them to a more reasonable amount.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform & Urban Development Act 1993 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that the costs claimed were excessive and unreasonable mattered most.

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

The decision was for the tenants.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may have their costs reduced if they can show that the landlord's claims are excessive.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation reports and supporting invoices for the legal fees claimed mattered.

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 always recommended to get 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.