First-tier Tribunal Rules on Reasonable Costs for Tenant Claims

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :

LON/00AC/OC9/2025/0681

Property : 140A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT]: [COUNSEL] [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] : N/A Type of [NAME] : Leasehold enfranchisement and leasehold extension – [NAME] for a reasonable costs order – s.91(2)(d) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of decision :

16 December 2025

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal determines the statutory legal costs payable to the

applicant by the respondent are £5,249.45.

(2) This sum is payable within 7 days of this decision being sent to the

parties.

____________________________________________________ The [NAME] 1. This is an [NAME] pursuant to s.91(2)(d) of the Leasehold Reform,

Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (‘the 1993 Act’) seeking the

landlord's statutory costs of Legal fees (inclusive of VAT) in the sum of

£3,300; Valuation fees (inclusive of VAT) in the sum of £1,800; Land

Registry fees (inclusive of VAT) in the sum of £39.60; Courier fees

(inclusive of VAT) in the sum of £109.85 and a total of

£5,249.45.

The background 2. The applicant is the headlease owner and Competent Landlord of

premises known as 130 to 144 (even) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

(‘the Premises’) of which 140A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the

Flat’) forms part. 3. The respondent’s predecessor in title, [RESPONDENT], held a long

lease of the Flat for a term of 105 years from 25 March 1969. On 13 May

2024, the respondent’s predecessor in title made an [NAME] for the

grant of new Lease by way of Notice of Claim pursuant to the provisions

of the 1993 Act. 4. On 29 May 2024, the Flat and the benefit of the Notice of Claim was

assigned to [COMPANY] and the Flat and the benefit of the

Notice of Claim was thereafter assigned to the respondent on the same

date. On 24 July 2024, the applicant served a Counter-Notice pursuant

to Section 45 of the 1993 Act admitting the respondent’s

entitlement to the grant of a new lease for the Flat but without prejudice

to the contention that the Notice was invalid and of no effect. 5. The respondent had until 23 January 2025 to lodge an [NAME] with

the [NAME] by 23 January 2025 seeking a determination of

any outstanding terms of acquisition of a new lease. Consequently, the

Notice was deemed withdrawn pursuant to the provisions of Section 53

of the Act on 23 January 2025.

3 The hearing 6. Neither party requested an oral hearing and the tribunal determined the

[NAME] using the 287 page digital bundle provided by the parties. 7. In its written submissions the respondent accepted liability under

section 60 LRHUDA 1993 for the Landlord’s ‘reasonable’ costs down to

the date on which the notice of claim was deemed withdrawn. However,

the respondent challenged the figures for cost claimed by the

applicant and asserted they were excessive and submitted that the

amount reasonably recoverable is £3,032 inclusive of VAT. 8. The respondent also asserted the reasonable legal costs claimed should

be based on the Solicitors Guideline Hourly Rates as utilised by the

tribunal in previous decisions. The respondent also asserted the time

spent of 5.8 hours was excessive as the claim was deemed withdrawn

before any lease was required and therefore the drafting of a (draft) lease

was premature and the costs should be disallowed. The respondent

asserted that only the initial draft, when actually required for grant, falls

within section 60(1)(c) of the 1993 Act. 9. The respondent submitted that the valuation invoice totals £1,650 + VAT

and on the basis a site inspection was undertaken, an allowance above

desktop levels is accepted, but the hourly rate and total hours must still

be proportionate to the task of fixing the premium under section

60(1)(b). The respondent asserted this fee should be ‘trimmed’ to

£1,080 including VAT as the floor plans and photos are not

recoverable costs under s.60(1)(b) as they are a presentation ‘extra’. 10. The respondent did not dispute the Land Registry fee but asserted that

courier costs are commonly reduced or capped in the electronic age at

£35.00 plus VAT as being a reasonable allowance for this item. 11. In response to the respondent’s written submission the applicant

asserted that,

The basis upon which legal fees are charged to [NAME] are

by reference to the time spent by the relevant fee earners.

[NAME] was a Partner in the Leasehold

Enfranchisement department of a [NAME] and

at the relevant time had a charge out rate of £575 per hour. The

Partner is a Grade A fee earner. A Legal Director also undertook

work on this matter by finalising the Counter-Notice and at the

relevant time had a charge out rate of £465 per hour. The Legal

Director is a grade A fee earner. An Assistant Solicitor in the

Leasehold Enfranchisement department of [NAME] also undertook work in preparing the draft lease

attached to the Counter-Notice and at the relevant time had a

4

charge out rate of £375 per hour. The Assistant Solicitor is a

Grade C fee earner.

…

[NAME] have been acting for [NAME] for

many years dealing with enfranchisement matters.

[NAME] are accordingly [NAME]’s choice

of solicitor and have the knowledge and capacity to deal with

this work on their behalf. The rates charged by [NAME] are entirely consistent with the usual charge out rate

for solicitors in Central London. Additionally, [NAME]

submits that it is reasonable for a fee earner with the relevant

experience to have conduct of the matter and to perform work

on the same. 12. The applicant also submitted that the County Court Guideline Hourly

rates should not apply as,

… the County Court Guideline Hourly Rates are guideline rates

for summary assessment in [ADDRESS] matters before the

County Court where recovery of costs is not determined by

specific statutory provisions, and they accordingly do not apply

and/or are not relevant to the determination of the costs payable

pursuant to the provisions of Section 60 of Act. The County Court

Guideline Hourly Rates do not reflect the specialist nature of

leasehold enfranchisement work or the intended indemnity for

costs specifically set out in Section 60 (which is subject only to a

requirement of reasonableness). 13. The applicant also asserted that the cost of preparing a draft lease was

reasonable as,

…It is submitted that it is appropriate for a draft lease to be

prepared and included within any Counter-Notice served on

behalf of a landlord in order for a landlord to fully specify its

counter-proposals concerning the form of Lease (as required by

Section 45(3)(b) of the Act). It is further considered good practice

amongst enfranchisement professionals to do so and it is

confirmed that [NAME] prepare a draft lease as

a counter-proposal for every Counter-Notice served in new lease

claims. Preparing a draft new lease requires a review of the

existing lease and title documents for the property in question,

consideration of the current covenants in the lease,

consideration of the relevant amendments under the Act (and

any defects in the current lease to be addressed), consideration

of the proposals set out by the tenant in the Notice of Claim and

thereafter preparing a new lease as part of the landlord’s

counter-proposals. It is submitted that these are tasks that the

5

landlord must undertake in any event in order to properly

respond to the proposals in a Notice of Claim and to

thereafter serve a valid Counter-Notice. The tribunal’s reasons 14. In reaching its decision the tribunal had regard to the documents

provided by the applicant which included a statement dated 21

November 2025 from [NAME] BA(Hons) PgDip MRICS of

[NAME]. Both parties cited a number of previous decisions of the

First-tier Tribunal ([NAME]). Although this tribunal had

regard to those decision, they do not form a binding precedent on this

tribunal. 15. The tribunal also had regard to s.60 of the 1993 Act, the relevant

part of which states:

(1)Where a notice is given under section 42, then (subject to the

provisions of this section) the tenant by whom it is given shall be

liable, to the extent that they have been incurred by any relevant

person in pursuance of the notice, for the reasonable costs of and

incidental to any of the following matters, namely—

(a)any investigation reasonably undertaken of the tenant’s right

to a new lease;

(b)any valuation of the tenant’s flat obtained for the purpose of

fixing the premium or any other amount payable by virtue of

Schedule 13 in connection with the grant of a new lease under

section 56;

(c)the grant of a new lease under that section;

but this subsection shall not apply to any costs if on a sale made

voluntarily a stipulation that they were to be borne by the

purchaser would be void.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) any costs incurred by a

relevant person in respect of professional services rendered by

any person shall only be regarded as reasonable if and to the

extent that costs in respect of such services might reasonably be

expected to have been incurred by him if the

circumstances had been such that he was personally liable for all

such costs.

(3)Where by virtue of any provision of this Chapter the tenant’s

notice ceases to have effect, or is deemed to have been

6

withdrawn, at any time, then (subject to subsection (4)) the

tenant’s liability under this section for costs incurred by any

person shall be a liability for costs incurred by him down to that

time. 16. The tribunal finds that the [NAME] for the grant of a new lease was

far from simple and straightforward in view of the complicated history

of multiple assignments. Consequently, the tribunal finds it was

reasonable for the applicant to rely upon its solicitors of choice who had

the necessary experience to determine the validity or otherwise of the

respondent’s Notice of Claim. 17. The tribunal also accepted the statement of from [NAME] [NAME]

which set out in detail the work that had been carried out in respect of

the valuation and the complications the [NAME] for the grant of a new

lease presented in this instance. The tribunal also accepts the inclusion

of a floorplan and photographs in the valuer’s valuation cannot be

regarded as unusual and are reasonable. 18. The tribunal determines that the provision of a draft lease at an early

stage also falls within s.60(1)(c) and accepts that it has become standard

practice to do so and that in the circumstances it was not unreasonable

to do so. 19. The tribunal also accepts the applicant’s reasons for use of a [NAME] to send hard copies of the Counter-Notice to the various

recipients. The tribunal finds it was not unreasonable to do so in the

absence of express permission to rely on service by email and the

importance of timely service. 20. In conclusion, the tribunal determines the reasonable costs payable the

respondent to the applicant are £5,249.45 i.e.:

Legal fees (inclusive of VAT) in the sum of £3,300;

Valuation fees (inclusive of VAT) in the sum of £1,800;

Land Registry fees (inclusive of VAT) in the sum of £39.60;

Courier fees (inclusive of VAT) in the sum of £109.85

21. This sum is payable to the applicant within 7 days of this decision being

sent to the parties.

Name:

Judge Tagliavini Date: 16 December 2025

7

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) 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 (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- 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 (Lands Chamber).