First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Premium Under 1993 Act
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on the amount to be paid for the freehold interest in a property under the 1993 Act. The decision was based on a valuation report and the collective enfranchisement claim.
⚖️ Legal holding
Leaseholders are entitled to acquire the freehold interest in their property under the 1993 Act.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the premium for the freehold interest under the 1993 Act.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined the premium for the freehold interest in a property under the terms of the 1993 Act to be £104,250. The decision was based on the valuation report and the collective enfranchisement claim.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Reference : LON/00AT/OCE/2020/0178
HMCTS Code : P:PAPERREMOTE
Property : 8 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicants : [redacted]
T [COMPANY]
[RESPONDENT] : [COUNSEL] [NAME]
Respondent: [redacted]
Section 26
Date of Application
To County Court : 16 July 2020
Tribunal Member : Mrs [NAME] of Decision : 10 February 2021
_________________________________________________
DECISION
_____________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021
1. The Tribunal determines that the premium to be paid for the freehold interest of the property known as 8 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the Property”) under the terms of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 is £104,250 to the Landlords excluding costs.
2. The Tribunal confirms the form of the transfer document TRI for Title Number NGL 244344.
Reasons for Decision
Introduction
3. This application concerns a collective enfranchisement claim for the Property, which comprises an end of terrace house and grounds. The house has been converted into four flats; all of which are let on long leases.
4. The respondent is the freeholder of the Property.
5. The leaseholders of Flats 8A, 8C and 8D wish to acquire the freehold interest in the Property. The person to be served with a Tenant's notice claiming the right to acquire the freehold cannot be found.
6. By the order (the ‘Order’) of Deputy District Judge Tear in the Brentford County Court 5 November 2020 it was ordered that:
1. Pursuant to Sections 26 and 27 of the Leasehold Reform Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 (the "1993 Act") the Court declares as follows:-
a. On the date that this Claim is made the Property was a property to which the collective enfranchisement provisions of the 1993 Act applied,
b. On the date that this Claim is made the Claimants would not have been precluded from giving valid notice of the Claim under Section 13 of the 1993 Act.
2. It is ordered that under Section 26(1) of 1993 Act that the freehold interest in the Property do vest in the [NAME] Claimant (as the [NAME] and the party appointed by the Claimants) pursuant to Section 27(1)(a) of the 1993 Act on such terms as may be determined by the First Tier Tribunal pursuant to Section 27(1)(b) of the 1993 Act.
3. It is ordered that. either a partner in the firm of [NAME] as appropriate be appointed as the [NAME]
for the purpose of executing the Transfer Deed (or such other person as the Court deems appropriate).
4. It is ordered that upon payment into Court by the Claimants of the Appropriate Sum less the Claimants' casts of and occasioned by this Claim the Deed of Transfer in a form approved by the FTT shall be executed by the [NAME] and that the [NAME] shall deliver the original of the Deed of Transfer to the [NAME].
5. The proceedings be stayed generally to permit the FTT to assess value.
7. The Valuation date is 16 July 2020 being the date of the issue of the claim.
The Property
8. The subject property comprises an end of terrace four storey property being 4 self-contained flats at lower ground, raised ground, 1st and 2nd floor levels.
9. Each flat has hallway, kitchen, bathroom, living room and one bedroom.
10. The property has off street parking for all flats at the rear.
11. The First Claimant, Mr [APPELLANT] holds flat 8A under a Lease dated 18 January 1985 for a term certain of 99 years from 29 September 1983.
12. The [NAME] Claimant, [APPELLANT] holds flat 8C under a Lease dated 6 March 1984 for a term certain of 99 years- also from 25 September 1983.
13. The [NAME] Claimant, [APPELLANT], holds flat 8D under
a Lease dated 12 July 1984 also for a term of 99 years from 29 September 1983.
14. The leaseholder of Flat 8B is not participating in the claim.
Applicant’s Submissions
15. Following the Court Order, the Tribunal is making a determination of the appropriate premium for the freehold interest under Title No NGL 244344 and form of transfer document.
16. The Applicants provided a bundle to the Tribunal which included a valuation report prepared by [NAME] (Hons) MRICS of [NAME] dated October 2020 with a valuation date of 16 July 2020.
Tribunal’s Deliberations
17. The Tribunal considered the valuation of the Property and the assumptions and calculations made by Mr [NAME].
18. The Tribunal noted a mathematical error in the calculation of the premium to be paid with respect of 8A. The existing lease value @ 80% relativity should be £176,000. The corrected marriage value is £32,434 with the Landlord’s share £16,217. The premium payable is £27,783 say £27,750.
19. The Tribunal agreed with the valuations of 8C and 8D at £25,500 for each flat.
20. However, the Tribunal noted that Mr [NAME] had not valued the freehold interest in 8B. This flat is identical to Flats 8C and 8D and the Tribunal therefore determines its value at £25,500.
21. The application is for the collective enfranchisement of [ADDRESS] and the freehold interest in all of the property and not just the parts occupied by the three Applicants.
22. The Tribunal determines the valuation for the freehold interest at:
8A £27,750
8B £25,500
8C £25,500
8D £25,500 = TOTAL £104,250
Right of Appeal
23. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.
24. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.
25. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.
26. The application 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 making the application is seeking.
[NAME]
10 February 2021
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Premium Under 1993 Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Confirms Collective Enfranchisement Claim
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Acquisition Price
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Purchase Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Freehold Interest Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Freehold Acquisition Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Acquires Freehold Interest Under Leasehold Reform Act 1…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Acquisition Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Purchase Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Enfranchisement Price for London Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Acquisition Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
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 claimant is a leaseholder or tenant under the relevant act.
- The claimant seeks to acquire the freehold interest as permitted by the Leasehold Reform Act 1993.
- The conditions for collective enfranchisement are met according to the act.
- The assessment of the property's value includes its development potential and planning permissions.
- The claim involves the right to acquire freehold interest under the 1993 Act.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No factors identified that went 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?
It set the premium for the freehold interest in a property under the 1993 Act.
Who was involved?
Leaseholders and the freeholder of the property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the valuation report and the collective enfranchisement claim.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Leasehold Reform, Housing & Urban Development Act 1993, specifically Section 26.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The valuation report and the collective enfranchisement claim were the most important arguments.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the leaseholders.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation can use this judgment to understand how the premium for freehold interest is determined.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The valuation report and the collective enfranchisement claim were crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed 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 a case like this.
