VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Leasehold Property Purchase Price at £60

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that the purchase price for a leasehold property should be £60, taking into account the long-term lease and low rental income. This decision was made under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair assessment of the purchase price for a leasehold property under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Topics

leasehold reformproperty valuation

Provisions

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal valued a leasehold property at £60, considering the long-term lease and low rental income.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the purchase price for a leasehold property at £60, considering the long-term lease and low rental income, under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The property was valued at £60 by an expert valuer, Mr Cohen, and the Tribunal accepted this valuation.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/24UP/OAF/2019/0007

Property

:

49 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[APPELLANT]

Respondent: [redacted]

:

Type of Application

:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 ([RESPONDENT] Landlord)

Tribunal Member

:

[NAME] of Decision

:

22 July 2019

DECISION

The Tribunal determines that the that the purchase price is fairly assessed at £60 and that the amount of unpaid pecuniary rent payable for the property up to the date of the proposed conveyance is nil.

2

Background

1. By an Order of District Judge Stewart sitting at the County Court at Winchester and dated 30 April 2019 the Tribunal is required to determine the price payable under section 9 of the 1967 Act.

2. In a covering letter to the Tribunal dated 17 May 2019 it is stated that an Expert Valuation report is not to be filed due to the “very nominal interest” and that the expertise of the Tribunal is to be relied upon.

3. The Tribunal made directions on 13 June 2019 requiring an expert’s report to be submitted and this was received on 1 July 2019.

4. The report by [NAME] of [COMPANY] is dated 23 June 2019 and values the freehold interest “as at the date of valuation” at £60. Mr [NAME] states the date of valuation is 17 May 2019.

5. An inspection of the property has not been made.

The Lease 6. The property is held by way of a lease dated 22 November 1908 between (1) [NAME] and (2) [NAME] and is for a term of 999 years from 29 September 1908 at a fixed rent of £5 per annum. The Law 7. Section 27(5) of the Act provides: The appropriate sum which in accordance with Section 27(3) of the Act to be paid in to Court is the aggregate of: a. Such amount as may be determined by (or on appeal from) the appropriate Tribunal to be the price payable in accordance with Section 9 above; and b. The amount or estimated amount (as so determined) of any pecuniary rent payable for the house and premises up to the date of the Conveyance which remains unpaid.

8. 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 application was made to the Court.

3 9. 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 £500. The Premises 10. The property comprises a two storey double bayed Victorian built centre terraced house.

11. The accommodation comprises an entrance hall, lounge with kitchen off on the ground floor with landing, three bedrooms and bathroom/WC on the first floor.

12. There are gardens front and rear but no garage or off-street parking facility. Evidence 13. Mr [NAME] capitalizes the rental income of £5 per annum at 8% rather than his “benchmark” of 7% to reflect the unattractive investment due to the income being not subject to review and uneconomic to collect.

14. In view of the very long unexpired term Mr [NAME] is of the opinion that the reversion has no value and it is not therefore necessary to provide a Market Value of the property or discount rate. Decision 15. The date of valuation is the date of the application to the County Court not to the Tribunal as indicated by Mr [NAME]. However, in view of the length of the reversion this error does not affect the valuation provided.

16. The Tribunal accepts Mr [NAME] valuation and determines that the that the purchase price is fairly assessed at £60 and that the amount of unpaid pecuniary rent payable for the property up to the date of the proposed conveyance is nil.

D [NAME] 22 July 2019 1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office, which has been dealing with the case. 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.

2. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for

4 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.

3. 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 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 purchase price for the freehold interest was fairly assessed at £60.
  • The amount of unpaid rent for the property up to the conveyance date is nil.
  • The valuation date should be the date the application was made to the County Court.
  • The appropriate valuation basis is Section 9(1) of the Act, as the rateable value was not above £500 on 31 March 1990.
  • The expert capitalized the £5 per annum rental income at 8% to reflect the unattractive investment.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set the purchase price for a leasehold property at £60.

Who was involved?

The claimant, represented by solicitors, and the missing landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court accepted the expert's valuation of £60, considering the long-term lease and low rental income.

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 the property's long-term lease and low rental income justified a low purchase price.

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 expect a fair assessment of the purchase price based on the lease terms and rental income.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The expert valuation report by Mr a person.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person wishing to appeal must seek permission from the First-tier Tribunal 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 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.