VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Interest Price at £116.00

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that the price for the freehold interest is £116.00 based on a valuation report submitted under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

⚖️ Legal holding

The appropriate sum to be paid for the freehold interest is determined by the valuation report complying with the requirements set forth in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Topics

valuationleasehold reformproperty law

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.27

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal valued the freehold interest at £116.00 based on the valuation report provided.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the price to be paid for the freehold interest at £116.00 based on a valuation report submitted under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/00MW/OAF/2021/0024 - H00NI078

Property

:

5A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[COUNSEL] Solicitors

Respondent

: [redacted] [RESPONDENT] (Missing)

Type of Application

:

Section 27 Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (Missing Landlord)

Tribunal Member(s)

:

[NAME] of Decision

:

11 October 2021

DECISION

The Tribunal determines that the price to be paid for the freehold interest is £116.00

The Tribunal determines that the amount of unpaid pecuniary rent (if any) payable for the property up to the date of the proposed conveyance is nil.

2 Background

1. By an Order of Judge Tildesley OBE sitting as a County Court Judge exercising the jurisdiction of a District Judge at Havant Justice Centre dated 19 August 2021 the Tribunal is required to determine the price to be paid for the freehold interest.

2. Judge Tildesley OBE sitting as a Tribunal Judge directed that the application be dealt with on the papers without a hearing and that an electronic bundle including a valuer’s report complying with certain requirements was to be submitted.

3. The bundle was duly submitted containing a valuation report from [NAME] [NAME] dated 24 September 2021.

4. An inspection of the property has not been made.

The Lease

5. The site is identified on the HM Land Registry plan edged red under title number IW34042 and is held by way of a lease between Sir [NAME] and [NAME] for a term of 1000 years from 11 October 1887 at a rent of £8 per annum.

The Law

6. Section 27(5) of the Act provides: The appropriate sum which in accordance with Section 27(3) of the Act to be paid in to Court is the aggregate of: a. Such amount as may be determined by (or on appeal from) the appropriate Tribunal to be the price payable in accordance with Section 9 above; and b. The amount or estimated amount (as so determined) of any pecuniary rent payable for the house and premises up to the date of the Conveyance which remains unpaid.

7. Section 9 of the Act sets out in detail the assumptions to be made and the procedure to be followed in carrying out the valuation. The effect of Section 27(1) is that the valuation date is the date on which the application was made to the Court.

8. There are various bases set out in Section 9 of the Act and the Tribunal determines that the appropriate basis is in Subsection 9(1) being that on 31 March 1990 the Rateable value of the house and premises was not above £500.

The Premises The property comprises a single storey dwelling constructed circa 1955. The accommodation comprises an entrance hall, living room, kitchen 2 bedrooms and bathroom plus a garage. The area is 94sq.m..

3 Evidence and Decision

9. In his valuation report Mr [NAME] has determined that the value for the purposes of Section 9 of The Act is £116.00.

10. Mr [NAME] made his determination on an open market value of the existing property of £280,000 and a site value of £150,000. He does not attempt to provide a value for the reversion but given that it is some 800 years plus this is of little consequence. He gives a rounded value for the reversion of £1.00

11. The rent payable during the term is £8 per annum which he capitalises at a 7% yield arriving at the rounded sum for the term of £115.00.

12. The combined value of term and reversion is therefore £116.00

13. Mr [NAME] bases his open market value on the sale of five bungalows in Sandown with values ranging between £251,000 and £290,000.

14. The Tribunal accepts Mr [NAME] valuation as a fair reflection of the price and determines that the price to be paid for the freehold interest is £116.00.

15. The Tribunal determines that the amount of unpaid pecuniary rent (if any) payable for the property up to the date of the proposed conveyance is nil.

D [NAME] [NAME]

11 October 2021

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4 4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 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 valuation report provided by the valuer was accepted as a fair reflection of the price.
  • The appropriate basis for valuation was determined to be Subsection 9(1) of the Act, as the property's rateable value was not above £500 on 31 March 1990.
  • The value for the freehold interest was determined to be £116.00 based on the valuer's report.
  • The amount of unpaid pecuniary rent for the property up to the conveyance date was determined to be nil.
  • The valuer's calculation of the term's value, capitalising an £8 per annum rent at a 7% yield, was accepted.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal determined the price for the freehold interest is £116.00.

Who was involved?

The claimant and the respondent, involving a property located at the address, Sandown.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court accepted the valuation report provided by Shaun R Woolford, determining the price based on the valuation method outlined in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 was applied to determine the price for the freehold interest.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The valuation report provided by Shaun R Woolford was crucial in determining the price for the freehold interest.

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

The decision was in favour of the claimant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have a thorough valuation report when applying for the freehold interest.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation report submitted by Shaun R Woolford was critical in determining the price for the freehold interest.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person wishing to appeal this decision must seek permission to do so by making a written application to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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.