VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Premium for Missing Landlord Enfranchisement Case

Case No.

📌 In brief

In a case involving a missing landlord, the First-tier Tribunal decided on the amount to be paid based on a valuation report. The report was prepared by an expert to determine the appropriate sum.

⚖️ Legal holding

In a missing landlord collective enfranchisement case, the appropriate sum to be paid into court is determined based on a valuation report.

Topics

missing landlordcollective enfranchisementvaluation report

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the amount of premium to be paid in a missing landlord collective enfranchisement case.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the appropriate sum to be paid into court in a missing landlord collective enfranchisement case based on a valuation report prepared by an expert.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : LON/00AP/OCE/2024/0621

Property : 28A and 28B [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenants : (1) Ms [NAME] (2) Ms [NAME]

Landlords : (1) Mr [NAME] (2) Ms [NAME] of Application : Amount of premium payable in a missing landlord collective enfranchisement case

Tribunal : Judge S [NAME] [NAME]

: 15 January 2025

DECISION The Tribunal determines £15,702 is the appropriate sum to be paid into court

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

1. This is the determination of the price to be payable under Schedule 6 to the Leasehold Reform etc Act 1993, and where the landlord cannot be found, pursuant to s.27(5)(a).

2. 28 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the property”) is a substantial two- storey centre terrace double-bayed house, which forms part of a terrace of contemporaneous houses of similar kind and has been converted into two self- contained flats, one on each floor.

3. A valuation report has been prepared by Mr [NAME]

2

of [COMPANY], [NAME], 107 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE], dated 19th November 2024.

4. Mr [NAME] conclusion is that the price payable by his clients is £15,702. This is based on a valuation of £7,851.00 in respect of each of the two flats.

5. It is our practice to look very carefully at an expert’s report in the case of a missing landlord because the Tribunal does not have the benefit of an expert’s report commissioned on behalf of the landlord.

6. However, after a careful reading of Mr [RESPONDENT] report, we find:

(a) the date of valuation to be correct;

(b) the length of the unexpired terms to be correct;

(c) the capitalisation rate of 8% to be reasonable and appropriate;

(d) the deferment rate of 5% to be reasonable and appropriate;

(e) the comparables to be appropriate;

(g) the methodology to be correct.

7. We adopt and determine the elements for the premium calculation set out by Mr [NAME]. The premium payable is therefore £15,702.

8. We confirm the draft TR1 [pages 105-109 of the hearing bundle].

9. A copy of Mrs [NAME] calculation is attached [page 67 of the hearing bundle].

Judge: S [NAME]: 15 January 2025

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed12 cases

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 unexpired terms of the leases were correctly stated in the report.
  • The capitalisation rate of 8% used in the valuation was considered reasonable and appropriate.
  • The deferment rate of 5% applied in the valuation was deemed reasonable and appropriate.
  • The methodology used for the valuation was determined to be correct.
  • The Tribunal adopted the premium calculation elements presented by the valuer.
  • The Tribunal determined that £15,702 is the appropriate sum to be paid into court.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal determined the appropriate sum to be paid into court in a missing landlord collective enfranchisement case.

Who was involved?

The tenants and landlords were involved, but the landlords could not be found.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on a valuation report provided by an expert, ensuring fairness in the absence of the landlord.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The valuation report provided by an expert was crucial in determining the appropriate sum.

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

The decision was for the tenants who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have a thorough valuation report to support their case.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation report prepared by an expert was critical in making the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

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.