VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Price at £32,010

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that the applicants should pay £32,010 for the freehold interest based on valuation evidence and statutory terms under the 1993 Act.

⚖️ Legal holding

The Tribunal must determine the appropriate sum to be paid into court for the landlord's interests under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

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 based on valuation evidence and statutory terms.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the price to be paid by the applicants for the freehold interest at £32,010 based on valuation evidence and statutory terms under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2014

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AM/OCE/2019/0074 Property : 77 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted] [APPELLANT] (Flat 77b) [NAME] and [COUNSEL] [NAME] [COUNSEL] (Flat 77a)

Representative : [COMPANY] (Solicitors) Respondent : [redacted] : Not applicable Type of application : Application under sections 26 and 27 of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Tribunal members : Mr [NAME] [NAME] of paper determination : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 14th June 2019

DECISION

2

Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal determines that the price to be paid by the applicants for the freehold interest is £32,010. The background 1. This is an application pursuant to a vesting order made by District Judge Bell at the County Court at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch on 30th May 2018 under section 26 of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”).

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.

4. The applicants in this matter were the qualifying tenants of three flats, namely the lower ground floor flat, Flat 77A, a raised ground floor flat, Flat 77b and the first flat, Flat 77c. There is a non-participating tenant of the second floor flat, Flat 77d. These four flats together with appurtenant land constitute [ADDRESS] E8 1 NT (“the Property”) .

5. By virtue of the order of District Judge Bell they became the nominee purchasers of the freehold interest in the Property for the purposes of the 1993 Act. The respondent freehold owner is [RESPONDENT].

6. On 23rd October 2017, the applicants issued a Part 8 Claim at the County Court sitting at Wandsworth for an order pursuant to section 26(1) of the 1993 Act vesting the freehold interest in the Property in the applicants. The applicants have been unable to ascertain the whereabouts of the respondent and they were therefore unable to serve a notice on her pursuant to section 13 of the 1993 Act.

7. The court order of 30th May 2018 includes provision that: “1. The interest in the Property registered under title number 263092 is herby vested in the claimants….upon such terms as may be determined by the First Tier Tribunal.”

3 “2. Upon the claimant paying into court such sums as may be determined by the First Tier Tribunal a District judge or such other person as the court may appoint shall execute a transfer in the form approved by a First-tier Tribunal.” 8. In support of the application, the applicants rely upon the written valuation evidence of Mr [NAME] dated 21st May 2018 Mr [NAME] is of the view that the premium to be paid is £28,380. The valuer does not apportion the premium payable between the participating tenants. The Determination 9. The Tribunal accepts the opinions expressed by Mr [NAME] in his valuation report dated 21st May 2018 save that: (i) [ADDRESS] proceedings were issued on 23rd October 2017 and the Tribunal has applied this date whereas Mr [NAME] has taken 25th October 2017 as the valuation date. (ii) The Tribunal considers that there are material differences between the comparable properties relied upon by Mr [NAME] and the subject property. After careful consideration it is the opinion of the Tribunal that Flat 77A has a long lease value of £675,000, Flats B and C long leases are valued at £450,000 and Flat 77D a value of £475,000. (iii) The Tribunal values the appurtenant property at £2,500 for the Property rather than the £100 proposed by Mr [NAME]. (iv) Taking these matters into account the Tribunal has assessed the long leasehold value of the Property as at the valuation date of 23rd October 2017 as £2,050,000.

10. The adjusted calculation has resulted in premium of £32,010. A copy of the Tribunal’s valuation is attached to this decision as Annex A. 10.

11.

Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that the premium to be paid in respect of the collective enfranchisement of 77A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] is £32,010. These monies to be paid into Court.

4 11. The Tribunal also approves the draft proposed HMLR TRI included in the bundle subject to the inclusion at paragraph 8 “Consideration”, that the consideration (the premium of £32,010) has been paid into court. 12. This matter should now be returned to the County Court sitting at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch under Claim Number D03 EC 048 in order for the final procedures to take place.

[NAME] [NAME] 14th June 2019

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5

Annex A: Tribunal Valuation Property: 77a, 77b, 77c, 77d [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Reference: MR/LON/00AM/OCE/2019/0074 Lease and Valuation Data Lease Term: 24/06/1985 Lease Expiry date: 23/06/2110 Unexpired term as at valuation date: 92.67 years Date of Valuation 23/10/2017 Rent receivable by landlord: Payable from valuation date for 0.65 years 200 £ Payable from first review date for 33 years 400 £ Payable from second review date for 33 years 600 £ Payable from third review date for 33 years 700 £ Long leasehold VP value: Flat A 675,000 £ Flat B 450,000 £ Flat C 450,000 £ Flat D 475,000 £ Total long leasehold VP value 2,050,000 £ Values Notional freehold value of flats A-D 2,070,707 £ Long leasehold value on statutory terms for flats A-D 2,050,000 £ Capitalisation rate (%) 6.00 Deferment rate (%) 5.00 Value of [NAME] present interest Term 1-3 Term interest 6,994 £ 6,994 £ Reversion Freehold in vacant possession 2,070,707 £ Deferred @ 92.67 years @ 5% 0.01087 22,517 £ Current value of the [NAME] interest 29,511 £ Marriage value Nil Appurtenent land 2,500 £ Price payable to Freeholder Value of [NAME] current interest 32,011 £ Total 32,011 £ Say 32,010 £

📊 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 Tribunal determined the price to be paid for the freehold interest is £32,010.
  • The valuation date was set as 23rd October 2017, when court proceedings were issued.
  • The Tribunal valued Flat 77A at £675,000 for its long lease.
  • The Tribunal valued Flats B and C at £450,000 each for their long leases.
  • The Tribunal valued Flat 77D at £475,000 for its long lease.
  • The Tribunal valued the appurtenant property at £2,500.
  • The total long leasehold value of the Property was assessed as £2,050,000.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The valuer's proposed valuation date of 25th October 2017 was not accepted.
  • The valuer's proposed value of £100 for the appurtenant property was rejected.

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 £32,010.

Who was involved?

Qualifying tenants and the freehold owner were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court accepted the valuation evidence but adjusted the figures based on the statutory terms.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The valuation evidence provided by the valuer was crucial in determining the price.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider the statutory terms and valuation evidence carefully.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation report and statutory terms were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.

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.