First-tier Tribunal Rejects Proposed Lease Amendments

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :

LON/00BK/OLR/2025/0771

Property : 204 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : In person Respondent : [redacted] : N/A Type of [NAME] : Grant of a new lease – Leasehold Reform, Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 Tribunal members : Judge Tagliavini Mrs E Flint FRICS Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of hearing Date of decision : 18 November 2025 16 December 2025

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal disallows the amendments put forward by the applicant

to clauses 4.2 4.3 and 4.4 in the draft lease and are not to be included in

the terms of the new lease.

(2) The tribunal disallows the amendment put forward by the respondent to

clause 6.3 in the draft lease and this is not to be included in the new lease. ____________________________________________________ The [NAME] 1. This is an [NAME] pursuant to the provisions of the Leasehold

Reform, Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 (‘the 1993 Act’). in

which the applicant seeks the grant of a new lease of the subject property

at 204 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the

property’).

The background 2. The lease of the subject property is dated 30 October 1987 made between

[NAME] ([COMPANY] (1) and [NAME] [NAME] (2)

and grants a term of 125 ears with effect from 29 September 1985. The

registered [NAME] is [ADDRESS] (Maida Vale) [RESPONDENT] and

the respondent the [NAME] pursuant to an interest dated 11

December in which the [NAME] granted a lease of 999 years with

effect from 10 December 2018 subject to the applicant’s lease. 3. In a Statement of Agreed Facts dated 9 September 2025 the following

matters were agreed between the parties:

Valuation date:

3 July 2024

Unexpired existing lease term:

86.23 years

Capitalisation rate for ground rents: 7%

Relativity:

5%

Marriage value:

N/A

4. Prior to the hearing the parties agreed the premium payable for the new

lease. Consequently, the only issue that remained for determination by

the tribunal were four points that remained in dispute in respect of the

new lease. The hearing 4. An oral video hearing was held at which the applicant appeared in

person. The respondent did not attend and was not represented but

relied solely on the 6 pages of written submissions sent to the applicant

and to the tribunal in addition the hearing bundle of 184 digital pages.

3 The tribunal’s reasons 5. Having had regard to the parties written and oral submissions as well as

the documents relied upon by the parties the tribunal makes the decision

recorded above. 6. The amendments (in red) sought by the applicant but not agreed by the

respondent are:

4.2 In clause 4(vi) of the Flat Lease the words “[NAME]”

shall be substituted by the words “[NAME], or the

relevant [NAME]”

4.3 In clause 4(xi) of the Flat Lease the words “[NAME] or its

[NAME]” shall be substituted by the words “[NAME] or its [NAME] and (if reasonably required

by [NAME]) any [NAME] or its [NAME]”

4.4 In clause 4(xxii) of the Flat Lease the words “[NAME] or

its [NAME]” shall be substituted by the words

[NAME] or its [NAME] or (if reasonably

required by [NAME]) any [NAME] or its

[NAME]” 7. The amendments (in red) sought by the respondent but not agreed by

the applicant are:

6.3 The landlord shall not be personally liable under any of the

covenants on his part herein contained otherwise than in

respect of breaches thereof for which he is responsible 8. In support of its amendments the Mr [NAME] submitted that this

[NAME] concerned a simple renewal of the lease and that there

should be no additional burdens placed on the leaseholder. The current

intermediate landlord was not acting like a landlord at all and this was a

disadvantage, as the applicant had had to pay three sets of costs in

seeking a licence to alter the subject premises. 9. Mr [NAME] told the tribunal that clause 6.3 was a completely new clause

and in any event his lease was not in the same form as the one relied

upon by the respondent at [ADDRESS], as an example of the need for

consistency in terms. 10. In its written submissions, the respondent asserted that it was entitled

to retain the original wording of clause 4.2 without the applicant’s

proposed amendment. The respondent understood this amendment

4

seeks to avoid the tenant being required to pay the costs, charges and

expenses incurred by the landlord and a [NAME] resulting from

the tenant’s breach. The respondent therefore considers that the word

“or” should not be added as it would be unreasonable for the tenant not

also to have to pay the costs, charges and expenses incurred by a [NAME] in circumstances where they arise from the tenant being in

breach of the terms of the lease. 11. The respondent submitted that it is entitled to retain Clause 4.2 of the

new lease without the Applicant’s proposed amendment and that the

clause as drafted is a permitted modification of the existing lease in

accordance with section 57(6)(b) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and

Urban Development Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”) in view of the change that

has occurred in the [NAME] lease structure relating to the Flat since

commencement of the existing lease. 12. The respondent submitted that clause 4.3 of the new lease extends clause

4(xi) to apply (if that should be required by the landlord) to any [NAME] or its [NAME] as well as to the landlord or its [NAME]. Consequently, clause 4.3 reflects the new [NAME] lease structure

in respect of the Flat and ensures that the [NAME] (currently

the [NAME]) will have the same access and rights to require and carry

out necessary works. 13. The respondent submitted that the [NAME] has those same rights in

the Intermediate Lease as against the landlord pursuant to clause 6.1 of

the Intermediate Lease (page 114 of the hearing bundle). It is therefore

necessary and appropriate for the [NAME]’s rights of access to be

reflected similarly in the new lease. Further, the applicant seeks to

amend clause 4.3 of the new lease by adding the word “reasonably” so

that the access would only be extended to the [NAME] or their

[NAME] if “reasonably” required by [NAME]. This creates

ambiguity and also an inconsistency between the Intermediate Lease

and the new lease. It could lead to practical difficulties and delays or

place the landlord in breach of the Intermediate Lease in circumstances

where the landlord needs to allow the [NAME] access to the Flat for

the purposes specified in the clause and the tenant seeks to argue

whether or not the landlord is being reasonable in doing so. 14. The respondent submitted that clause 4.4 of the new lease extends clause

4(xvii) to apply also to other matters that may reasonably be imposed by

the [NAME] or its [NAME] in substitution or in

addition to those set out in the Third Schedule of the existing lease. 4.3.3

In each case, the substitute or additional matters can only have effect of

they are reasonably imposed. Further, clause 4.4 reflects the new

[NAME] lease structure in respect of the Flat. It was therefore necessary

and appropriate for the clause to be reflected similarly in the new lease.

5 15. The respondent submitted in respect of the new clause 6.3 that the

applicant now seeks to omit it in its entirety. However, the respondent

should be permitted to rely on this clause as clause 57(8A) of the 1993

Act states:

A person entering into any covenant required of him as landlord

(under subsection (8) or otherwise) shall be entitled to limit his

personal liability to breaches of that covenant for which he is

responsible. 16. The respondent submitted that as a similar clause had been included in

the new lease of another property at [ADDRESS] and that the

same term should now also be included in this instance to ensure all

leases were in similar terms and/or the new lease in the current

[NAME] should follow the precedent set in [ADDRESS]. 17. The respondent also submitted Clauses 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of the new lease

were agreed in their unamended form in the lease of [ADDRESS].

They are clauses 4.2 4.3 and 4.4 of the lease of flat 214 (at page 188 of

the hearing bundle). 8. The same clauses have therefore previously been

accepted in respect of the grant of a new lease of another flat in the

building in respect of which the [NAME] acted for the tenant

and the Respondent is under an obligation to ensure that leases are in

substantially similar terms mutatis mutandis. 18. The tribunal had regard to s.57 of the 1993 Act the relevant part of which

states:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter (and in particular to

the provisions as to rent and duration contained in section

56(1)), the new lease to be granted to a tenant under section 56

shall be a lease on the same terms as those of the existing lease,

as they apply on the relevant date, but with such modifications

as may be required or appropriate to take account—

(a) of the omission from the new lease of property included in

the existing lease but not comprised in the flat;

(b) of alterations made to the property demised since the

grant of the existing lease; or

(c) in a case where the existing lease derives (in accordance

with section 7(6) as it applies in accordance with section

39(3)) from more than one separate leases, of their

combined effect and of the differences (if any) in their

terms.

6

(2) Where during the continuance of the new lease the landlord

will be under any obligation for the provision of services, or for

repairs, maintenance or insurance—

(a) the new lease may require payments to be made by the

tenant (whether as rent or otherwise) in consideration of

those matters or in respect of the cost thereof to the

landlord; 19. The tribunal accepts the respondent’s arguments that the

applicant’s amendment to include the word ‘or’ in clause 4.2 is

unnecessary and potentially prejudicial to [NAME] and any other

relevant person. The tribunal accepts that the addition of the word

‘reasonably’ in clauses 4.3 and clause 4,4 has the potential to create

ambiguity. Further, the tribunal finds the word ‘reasonably’ adds

little of substance to the terms of the new lease, as charges made by the

landlord are required to be reasonable and are open to statutory

challenge. 20. The tribunal finds that 6.3 is a completely new clause and is neither

necessary nor required in order to make sense of the terms of the old

(or new) lease. The tribunal considers the suggested amendments is

effectively a ‘blanket’ clause and one that is usually reserved in the

creation of a anew leasehold and not an existing one. 21. Therefore, the tribunal determines the applicant’s suggested

amendments to clauses 4.2 4.3 and 4.4 are disallowed. 22. The tribunal also determined the respondent’s suggested

amendment at clause 6.3 is disallowed.

Name:

Judge Tagliavini Date: 16 December 2025

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-

7 tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-[NAME]-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]).