First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Purchase Price at £13,160
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided that a tenant can purchase their freehold interest for £13,160 under Section 27 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The decision was based on an assessment of the property's value and other relevant factors.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to acquire a freehold interest in their property under certain conditions set out by the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the price of the freehold interest under Section 27 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the price of a freehold interest to be £13,160 based on the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The decision was made after considering various factors including ground rent, property value, and market conditions.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
Case Reference : BIR/00CR/OAF/2022/0022
Property
: 7 St.[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicants
: [redacted]
: [NAME] with Expert Evidence by [RESPONDENT].[RESPONDENT]
Respondent: [redacted] To determine the sum payable into Court by the Lessee to
purchase the freehold interest under Section 27 of the
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 by Order of Birmingham County
Court dated 7 October 2022, Claim No. J00BM466
Tribunal Members : [NAME] B.Sc.(Est.Man.) FRICS (Chairman)
Judge M.K. [NAME]
: None. Paper Determination.
Date of Decision : 04 July 2023
____________________________________________________________
DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
2
DECISION
1 The price of the freehold interest is determined at £13,160 (Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Pounds).
REASONS
Introduction 2 The Applicants hold a lease of 7 St.[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], granted for a term of 99 years from 24 June 1963 at a ground rent of £18.00 p.a. and wish to acquire the freehold interest. Despite extensive enquiries, the Applicants' Solicitors had been unable to locate the freeholder to negotiate the purchase and applied to Birmingham County Court under s.27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 ('the Act') on 5 October 2021 for a vesting order to transfer the freehold to the Applicants subject to payment of costs into Court.
3 By Order of Birmingham County Court dated 7 October 2022, the freehold was vested in the Applicants subject to transfer to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for the price to be assessed under sections 9 and 27(5)(a) of the Act.
4 The Tribunal received the application on 21 December 2022, issued Directions, inspected the property with Applicants' Solicitor, Mr [COUNSEL].[COUNSEL] of [NAME] on 19 May 2023 and determines as follows.
The Law 5 The property is held by lease for a term of 99 years from 24 June 1963 granted by [APPELLANT]. (Landlord) to [APPELLANT] (Tenant) at a fixed ground rent of £18 p.a. The use is restricted to a private dwelling house and the tenant is responsible for all repairs.
6 The valuation date is 5 October 2021 which was the date of application to the County Court.
7 The Tribunal has considered the facts and determines that the price is to be assessed under section 9(1) of the Act.
Issues [ADDRESS] requires the First-tier Tribunal to determine the price of the freehold interest.
The price payable under section 9(1) of the Act 9 The Applicants submitted a valuation prepared by Mr [NAME].[NAME] of Messrs Lawrence & Wightman, Birmingham, on their behalf and the Tribunal's decision of each component of the valuation is set out below.
10 Unexpired Term
Applicants
40.72 years at the valuation date.
Tribunal
The Tribunal agrees the unexpired term at 40.72 years at the valuation date.
11 Value of Term Ground Rent
Applicants
£18.00 p.a. capitalised at 6.5%, producing a capital value of £255.
3
Tribunal
The Tribunal agrees the 6.5% capitalisation rate as fair, based on its own expertise.
12 Freehold 'Standing House' and 'Entirety' values
Applicant
The Applicants bought the lease in 1981 and the price paid at the time is of no assistance to determine the value in 2021.
Mr [NAME] considers the value at October 2021 to have been £265,000 having checked the sales records of similar semi-detached houses sold in the area around that date:
[ADDRESS] 2021 £245,000
[ADDRESS] 2021 £275,000
59 Wallowswood
December 2021 £259,950
65 Wallowswood
March 2022 £249,999
Tribunal
The Tribunal found the house to have been extended by converting the loft to provide additional accommodation, the garage had been converted to a bedroom, a timber shed and summer house had been built in the garden and the back garden remodelled by adding raised decking. It had also been improved by refitting the kitchen and bathroom, installing central heating and double glazing. There was nothing more that could reasonably be expected to have been carried out to further maximise the property's potential so, on this occasion, the Tribunal found the standing house and entirety values to be the same.
Bearing this in mind and having considered sales evidence in the local area, the Tribunal agrees with Mr [NAME] that the standing house value and entirety value were both fairly represented by the figure of £265,000 at 5 October 2021.
13 Site Value as a percentage of Entirety Value
Applicants
34% of the entirety value.
Tribunal
This Tribunal agrees that this would have been in line with market expectations.
14 Deferment Rate
Applicants
Mr [NAME] submits for a deferment rate of 5.25% based on case law and personal experience of negotiating numerous cases with other Valuers. Cases cited:
1 [NAME] v [NAME] of the Calthorpe Estates [2009] UKUT 235 ([NAME])
2 Mansal Securities and Others [2009] EW Lands LRA/185/2007
3 [COMPANY] ([COMPANY] [2014] UKUT 0079 ([NAME])
Tribunal
The Tribunal agrees the deferment rate at 5.25%.
15 'Clarise reduction'
Applicant
Mr [APPELLANT] considered whether a reduction should have been made from the standing house value to reflect the possibility of a tenant remaining in occupation at the end of the term and 50 year statutory extension, under the provisions of Schedule 10 to the Local
4
Government and Housing Act 1989. The originating case is [COMPANY] [2012] UKUT 4 ([NAME]) [2012] 1 EGLR 80. In the subject case where the reversion was over 90 years away, he submits that it would have been unrealistic and makes no reduction.
Tribunal
The Tribunal agrees that the reversion in the subject application would have been too remote to require a Clarise reduction. Each case is considered on its merits but in this instance it was too far in the future and should not be reflected in the valuation.
16 Tribunal Valuation
Based on these inputs, the Tribunal determines the value of the freehold interest as:
Term 1
Ground Rent
£ 18
Years Purchase 40.72 years 6.5%
14.2212
£ 255
Term 2
Entirety Value
£265,000
x plot ratio
0.34
Plot Value
£ 90,100
5.25% return
0.0525
Equivalent rental value per s.15 of the Act
£ 4,730
Years Purchase 50 years 5.25%
17.5728
Present Value 40.72 years 5.25%
0.1245
£10,348
Reversion
Standing House Value
£ 265,000
Present Value 90.72 years 5.25%
0.00964
£ 2,554
£ 13,157
Freehold Value
say
£ 13,160
17 Tribunal Determination
The Tribunal determines the price of the freehold interest under the Act at £13,160 (Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Pounds) at the valuation date.
[NAME] B.Sc.(Est.Man.) FRICS Chairman
Date 04 July 2023
Appeal to the Upper Tribunal
Any appeal against this decision must be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Prior to making such an appeal the party appealing must apply, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal within 28 days of the date of issue of this decision (or, if applicable, within 28 days of any decision on a review or application to set aside) identifying the decision to which the appeal relates, stating the grounds on which that party intends to rely in the appeal and the result sought by the party making the application.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Premium Under Leasehold Reform Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Banning Order Against Residential Landlord
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Granted Right to Freehold Interest Under Leasehold Reform Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Financial Penalty Reduced in Housing Offence Appeal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenants Win Rent Repayment Orders for Landlord's Unlicensed HMO Operation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Service Charge Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenants Win Rent Repayment Order for Unlicensed HMO
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 tenant is entitled to acquire a freehold interest in their property under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
- A local housing authority must consider mitigating factors when imposing a financial penalty under the Housing Act 2004.
- A tenant is entitled to a rent repayment order if the landlord controls or manages an unlicensed HMO.
- A landlord may be granted dispensation from consultation requirements for service charge works if certain conditions are met.
- A local housing authority may apply for a banning order against a residential landlord who has been convicted of a banning order offense.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A landlord must comply with Improvement Notices to address disrepair issues in a rented property.
- An HMO operator is liable for financial penalties if they fail to comply with licensing conditions and management regulations, including smoke alarm maintenance.
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 a tenant to purchase their freehold interest at £13,160.
Who was involved?
A tenant applied to acquire their freehold interest and the First-tier Tribunal made the determination.
How did the court decide, and why?
The Tribunal considered various factors such as ground rent, property value, and market conditions to determine the price.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 27 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 was used to assess the freehold purchase price.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The valuation prepared by a chartered surveyor and the market value of similar properties in the area were crucial in determining the price.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the tenant, allowing them to purchase their freehold interest.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone seeking to acquire their freehold interest should follow the same process and valuation methods as outlined by the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The valuation report prepared by a chartered surveyor and sales records of comparable properties were important in determining the price.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) if permission is granted within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for guidance on acquiring freehold interests.
