VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Price at £150

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal determined the price for acquiring the freehold interest of a property based on a valuation report. The valuation was done according to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

⚖️ Legal holding

The valuation of the freehold interest must be based on the appropriate statutory criteria under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Topics

valuationleasehold reformfreehold acquisition

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.9Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.27

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the price for the freehold of a property based on a valuation report.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the price for the freehold of a property based on a valuation report submitted by a professional valuer. The valuation was conducted according to the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

Case Reference : CAM/33UH/OAF/2019/0003

Property : 5 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants

: [redacted] : [NAME] and [NAME]: [RESPONDENT] of [NAME] : [NAME] to determine the price payable under section 9 and 27 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] (Hons)

Date of Decision : 4 July 2019

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2018

DECISION

The Tribunal determines that the price payable for the freehold of the [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] is £150 and the amount of unpaid pecuniary rent payable for the property up to the date of the Conveyance is nil.

BACKGROUND

1. On 30 July 2018 the applicant [APPELLANT], the leaseholder of the Property, made [NAME] to the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) seeking the right under Part 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (the Act) to acquire the freehold of the Property.

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 2. On 31 January 2019, at the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), Master Teverson found that the claim should have been brought to the County Court and ordered that it be transferred to the County Court in Central London.

3. On 22 March 2019 , at the County Court in Central London, HHJ Gerald found that the Claimant was prevented from giving notice to the [RESPONDENT] or [NAME] pursuant to the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Section 27 because the identity of the [RESPONDENT] or [NAME], if any, cannot be found.

4. He ordered that the First-tier Tribunal determine the terms of the conveyance to include the price payable for the purchase of the freehold and any amounts or estimated amounts determined by the tribunal as being due to the transferor from the Claimant .

5. Directions were given on 20 May 2019. The Directions were to the effect that the case could be dealt with without the need for an oral hearing and required the applicant to notify the Tribunal should they require an oral hearing to be held. The applicant did not request an oral hearing.

The Lease

6. The applicant acquired their leasehold interest in [ADDRESS] on 12 February 2001.

7. The property is registered at the Land Registry under [NAME] number NK259836

8. The property is subject to a lease of 500 years from 13 April 1739. The register of [NAME] states that the rent is not known. However, a copy of an agreement dated 26 November 1943 and supplied by the [NAME], Mr [NAME] at Appendix 7 to his report states that the rent is 4 shillings per annum (20p). Notwithstanding which is correct, the amount is so small as to be of little significance to the valuation.

9. The property was subject to a lease for 90 years from 23 January 2001 to [NAME], the occupier of the property, determinable by notice after his death. Mr [NAME] died on 28 July 2007 and the leasehold interest has been closed.

10. 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 [NAME] was made to the Court – in this case the date it was transferred to the correct court, 31 January 2019.

11. 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 £5oo.

3 The Property

12. The valuation report provided by Mr [NAME] of [COMPANY] describes the property as a Grade 2 listed late 18c/early 19c property, formerly a pair of semi-detached cottages converted into a single dwelling. The construction is reported as external rough cast over a timber frame.

13. Accommodation is 2 receptions and kitchen and shower room to the ground floor and 2 bedrooms to the first floor. There is an external former wash house and the grounds extend to around 0.21 acres.

Basis of Valuation

14. Section 9 of the Act requires the [NAME] to assess the value of the Freeholder's interest for the duration of the present lease, followed by a notional 50-year lease extension at a modern ground rent, and finally to the reversionary value of the existing house or its site value if the house is assumed to have been demolished by that date.

Consideration

15. As no hearing was requested in this case and accordingly the Tribunal considered the matter by reference to the papers submitted.

16. Mr [NAME] submitted a report and appears to base his valuation of the following factors: Freehold Vacant Possession Value 125,000 Capitalisation of Existing Ground Rent 2% Deferment Rate 4.75% Remaining Term of Lease 219 years approx at the date of his valuation 4 June 2019.

17. Applying those factors to his valuation Mr [NAME] calculated the value of the Freehold to be £150.00.

18. The Tribunal noted that the valuation date used by Mr [NAME] was incorrect, it should have been the date of the [NAME] to the County Court. From the papers the Tribunal identified that the date of the [NAME] was the 31st January 2019, the date of transfer to the County Court from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) to which it had been incorrectly submitted. Given the length of the unexpired term, the effect on the valuation is minimal and the valuation date is assumed to be 31st January 2019.

19. Similarly the Tribunal might have taken issue with the methodology and some of the constituent parts of the valuation. However, again, given the length of the unexpired term and the overall effect those issues would have on the valuation the Tribunal decided that it was inappropriate to pursue such matters further.

20. The Tribunal noted that no proposal or calculation had been made of the amount of outstanding Ground Rent which might be payable. The Tribunal find, given the amount of the Ground Rent (£0.20), that such arrears would be minimal

4 and that unpaid pecuniary rent payable for the property up to the date of the Conveyance is nil.

Tribunal's Valuation

21. The Tribunal, having considered the information provided, including the substantial unexpired term of the lease, concluded that no benefit would be derived from challenging Mr [NAME] on the constituent parts of his valuation or the ground rent arrears. The Tribunal confirms Mr [NAME] valuation as being an appropriate amount to pay for the Freehold interest in the subject property.

22. The case must now be transferred back to Central London County Court.

[NAME] [NAME]: 23 July 2019

ANNEX – RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. 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 at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional Office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

3. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request to 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.

4. 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.

1

Case Reference : CAM/33UH/OAF/2019/0003

Property : 5 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants

: [redacted] : [COUNSEL] and [NAME]: [RESPONDENT] of [NAME] : [NAME] to determine the price payable under section 9 and 27 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] (Hons)

Date of Decision : 4 July 2019

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2018

DECISION

BACKGROUND

The Lease

3 The Property

Basis of Valuation

Consideration

Tribunal's Valuation

[NAME] [NAME]: 23 July 2019

ANNEX – RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1

Case Reference : CAM/33UH/OAF/2019/0003

Property : 5 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants

Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] (Hons)

Date of Decision : 4 July 2019

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2018

DECISION

BACKGROUND

The Lease

3 The Property

Basis of Valuation

Consideration

Tribunal's Valuation

[NAME] [NAME]: 23 July 2019

ANNEX – RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1

Case Reference : CAM/33UH/OAF/2019/0003

Property : 5 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants

Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] (Hons)

Date of Decision : 4 July 2019

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2018

DECISION

BACKGROUND

The Lease

3 The Property

Basis of Valuation

Consideration

Tribunal's Valuation

[NAME] [NAME]: 23 July 2019

ANNEX – RIGHTS OF APPEAL

📊 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 of the freehold interest is determined by the First-tier Tribunal.
  • The appropriate sum for the freehold interest is determined based on statutory criteria under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
  • Tenants are entitled to acquire the freehold interest if they meet the statutory requirements.
  • The valuation report must comply with the requirements set forth in the Leasehold Reform Act.
  • The price payable for the freehold interest is determined based on the valuation evidence presented.

❌ 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?

The Tribunal determined the price for the freehold of a property based on a valuation report.

Who was involved?

The claimant, a leaseholder, and the respondent, a missing landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the valuation report submitted by a professional valuer, adhering to the statutory criteria under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 sections 9 and 27.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the valuation method used to determine the price for the freehold interest.

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

The decision was for the claimant, setting the price for the freehold interest.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure that the valuation is conducted according to the statutory criteria under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation report submitted by a professional valuer mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a party may appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days of receiving the written reasons for the decision.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving the valuation of freehold interests.

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.