VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Interest Price at £1,100

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal set the price for the freehold interest at £1,100 in a case where the landlord could not be found. The decision was made under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

⚖️ Legal holding

Qualifying tenants are entitled to collective enfranchisement where the landlord cannot be found.

Topics

collective enfranchisementvaluation of freehold interest

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.26Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.27

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the price for the freehold interest and approved the draft transfer.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the price to be paid for the freehold interest at £1,100 in a case involving collective enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, where the landlord could not be found.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

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

NAT/LON/00AJ/OCE/2020/0050

Property : 110 and 110A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants :

[redacted] [NAME] [COUNSEL] : JPC Law Respondent: [redacted] : Not applicable (missing landlord) Type of application : Application under sections 26 and 27 of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Tribunal member : [NAME] B Holdsworth MSc FRICS Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of paper determination : 6 May 2020

DECISION

This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been not objected to by the parties. A face to face hearing was not held because all issues could be determined on paper. The documents referred to in this decision are in a submitted bundle of 193 pages, the contents of which are noted.

Decisions of the Tribunal (1) The Tribunal determines that the price to be paid by the applicant for the freehold interest is £1,100. (2) The terms of the draft transfer are provided for in paragraph 10 below. The Background 1. This is an application under section 26 of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”) pursuant to an order made by HH Judge Parfitt, sitting at the County Court at Central London on 11 March 2020.

2. Section 26(1) of the 1993 Act concerns claims for collective enfranchisement 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 27 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 and also to approve the form and terms of the proposed transfer. The applicants in this matter are [APPELLANT] and [NAME]. They are the qualifying tenants of two flats, namely, flats 110 and 110A at [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“[NAME]”). The respondent freehold owner is [RESPONDENT].

4. On 8 July 2019, the applicants issued a Part 8 Claim at the County Court at Central London for an order pursuant to section 26(1) of the 1993 Act vesting the freehold interest in [NAME] in the applicants. The applicants have been unable to ascertain the whereabouts of the respondents and were therefore unable to serve a notice on them pursuant to section 13 of the 1993 Act.

5. The applicants have provided the Tribunal with a valuation report prepared by Mr [NAME] dated 31 March 2020.

6. Mr [NAME] is of the view that the premium to be paid for the freehold interest is £940 as at the valuation date of 11 March 2020. The Determination 7. The Tribunal accepts the opinions expressed by Mr [NAME] in his valuation report dated 31 March 2020 save that: (i) The unexpired term is 949.46 years at the date of valuation.

(ii) In respect of the valuation date this should be 8 July 2019, the date the Part Claim was made by the applicants to the County Court and not 11 March 2020 as adopted by Mr [NAME]. This correction to the statutory valuation date has no material effect on the value of the premium payable given the approximate 949 year unexpired term and long dated reversion. (iii) The tribunal considers the 7% capitalisation rate adopted by the Expert to calculate the value of the freeholders ground rent revenue does not adequately reflect the security of the income. The tribunal adopts a capitalisation rate of 6% in perpetuity.

8. The adjusted calculation has resulted in premium of £1,099. A copy of the Tribunal’s valuation is attached to this decision.

9.

Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that the premium to be paid in respect of the collective enfranchisement of 110 and 110A at [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] is £1,100.

10. The Tribunal also approves the draft transfer which has been submitted by the applicant, subject to the inclusion in box 8 that the consideration (the premium of £1,100) has been paid into court.

11. This matter should now be returned to the County Court sitting at Central London under Claim Number FO2CL234 in order for the final procedures to take place. [NAME] 6 May 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 tenant is a qualifying tenant under the relevant act.
  • The landlord cannot be located or found.
  • The statutory requirements for lease extension or acquisition of freehold are met.
  • The tribunal determines the appropriate sum to be paid into court for the landlord's interests.
  • The case involves the use of a vesting order for statutory lease extension.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • No factors identified as leading to a decision against the claimant in the provided cases.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set the price for the freehold interest at £1,100.

Who was involved?

The qualifying tenants and the missing landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court accepted the valuation report but adjusted the capitalisation rate to 6%, resulting in a premium of £1,100.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, specifically sections 26 and 27.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The adjustment of the capitalisation rate to better reflect the security of the income.

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

For the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may be able to obtain the freehold interest if they follow the proper procedure under the Act.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation report and the statutory requirements under the Act.

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.