First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Interest Value at £300
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided that the freehold interest in a property should be valued at £300 based on an expert's report. This decision was made under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
⚖️ Legal holding
The appropriate sum to be paid for the freehold interest is determined based on expert valuation.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal valued the freehold interest at £300 based on an expert report.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined the total price to be paid for the freehold interest in a property located in Southampton at £300 based on an expert valuation report submitted by a valuer.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
:
CHI/00MS/OAF/2022/0003
Property
:
43 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
[NAME] [NAME] [COUNSEL]
:
[COUNSEL] LLP
Respondent: [redacted]
:
Houses and Premises – Leasehold Enfranchisement: [RESPONDENT] 21(1)(cza), 21(2) and 27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967
Tribunal Member
:
D Banfield FRICS Regional Surveyor
Date of Decision
:
8 June 2022
DECISION
The Tribunal determines that the total price to be paid for the freehold interest in 43 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] is £300.00.
The draft TR1 is approved.
2 1. By an Order of District Judge Printer sitting at the County Court at Southampton and dated 17 December 2021 the application to the Tribunal is for a determination as to the amount of the appropriate sum to be paid into court and for a determination of the provisions which ought to be contained in the conveyance.
2. The Tribunal made directions on 14 April 2022 indicating that the application would be dealt with on the papers unless the applicant objected within 28 days, no objection has been received and the matter is therefore determined in accordance with Rule 31 of the Tribunal’s Procedural Rules.
3. Directions also required the submission of a bundle to include a Valuer’s expert report complying with certain requirements and a draft transfer.
4. The bundle contains an expert valuation report from [NAME] dated 25 May 2022 in which he values the premium at £300.
5. The Tribunal has not inspected the property.
Evidence
6. Mr [NAME] report describes the property as an end of terrace house constructed over 100 years ago and of traditional construction with a pitched tiled roof. The accommodation comprises an entrance hallway, sitting room , dining room , kitchen and utility area with a cloakroom with wash hand basin on the ground floor with two double bedrooms and a bathroom on the first. The windows are UPVC double glazed units.
7. Externally there is a small courtyard garden. There is no on-site parking.
8. Mr [NAME] says the lease is for 500 years from 24 June 1877 at a ground rent of £18 pa.
9. Mr [NAME] has considered the following comparables;
a [ADDRESS]; sold July 2016 for £245,000 b [ADDRESS]; sold January 2022 for £229,624 c [ADDRESS]; sold October 2021 for £238,000 d [ADDRESS]; sold October 2021 for £222,500
10. Based on the above comparables Mr [NAME] assesses the open market value of the property at £265,000.
3 11. In his valuation calculation Mr [NAME] capitalizes the rent at 6% arriving at £300. The reversion to freehold in possession being some 355 years distant he values at nil.
12. A draft TR1 appears at pages 77 to 80 of the bundle.
Decision Valuation
13. The Tribunal accepts Mr [NAME] valuation which is shown at Appendix 1.
14. The Tribunal therefore determines that the total price to be paid for the freehold interest in 43 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] is £300.00.
TR1
15. The draft TR1 is approved.
D Banfield FRICS Regional Surveyor
8 June 2022
4 Appendix 1
5 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 Regional 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. 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 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Tenants in Breach of Lease for Unauthorised Alter…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Excess Works Costs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Must Get Landlord's Permission Before Adding Structures
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Secures Section 20C Order Limiting Landlord Costs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Exemption for Urgent Lift Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Discharges Management Order Under Landlord and Tenant A…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Not Payable
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Declines to Appoint Manager Due to Lack of Suitable Nom…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Denies Landlord's Request for Dispensation
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 case involves expert valuation for determining the payment for a freehold interest.
- The court allows cases where tenants must obtain written consent before making structural changes.
- The court supports claims where landlords are exempted from consultation due to urgency and necessity.
- The court upholds cases where a management order can be discharged if it is just and convenient.
- The court grants relief to tenants seeking to prevent unjustified cost recovery through service charges.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Cases involving the lack of nomination of a suitable manager are typically dismissed.
- Claims regarding service charges being demanded without conforming to lease terms are often dismissed.
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 £300.
Who was involved?
The claimant and the missing landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court accepted the valuation provided by an expert, considering comparable properties and the distance to the reversion date.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 21(1)(cza), 21(2), and 27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The expert's valuation based on comparable sales and the property's characteristics was crucial.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation can rely on expert valuation reports to determine the appropriate sum for a freehold interest.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The expert valuation report and comparable property sales data were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a person can appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) if they obtain permission.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.
