VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Sum and Terms for Leasehold Reform

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided the appropriate sum to be paid into court and the terms of the conveyance for leasehold reform. They determined the sum as £12.50, considering the low ground rent and the cost of collecting it.

⚖️ Legal holding

The appropriate sum to be paid into court under the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 is determined by the First-tier Tribunal.

Topics

leasehold reformconveyance terms

Provisions

Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.27

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal determined the appropriate sum to be paid into court and the terms of the conveyance for leasehold reform.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the appropriate sum to be paid into court as £12.50 and the terms of the conveyance for leasehold reform under the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The tribunal considered the valuation of the leasehold interest and concluded that the cost of collecting ground rent exceeded its value, leading to a nominal valuation of £12.50.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BC/OCE/2019/0026 Property : 59 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] [NAME] (1) and [COUNSEL] and [COUNSEL] (2) Representative : [COUNSEL] Solicitors Respondents : [redacted] Representative : None Type of [NAME] : S27 Leasehold Reform. Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 – determination of the appropriate sum and terms of the conveyance

Tribunal Members : Judge [NAME] (EstMan) FRICS Date and venue Determination : 12 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 12 March 2019

DECISION

2 The issues before the tribunal and its decisions 1. The issues before the tribunal were:

1.1 The appropriate sum to be paid into court; and

1.2 The terms of the conveyance

2. The decisions of the tribunal are: 2.1 The appropriate sum mentioned on s27(5) of the Act is £12.50; and

2.2 The conveyance shall be in the form of the draft attached hereto

3. The reasons for this these decisions are set out below.

NB Later reference in this Decision to a number in square brackets ([ ]) is a reference to the page number of the hearing file provided to us for use at the hearing.

Procedural and title background 4. The Property was originally constructed as a two-storey terraced house. It has subsequently been adapted to create two self-contained flats – 59 and 59a.

5. On 4 May 1962 a Mr [NAME] granted to [NAME] and [NAME] a lease of the ground floor flat (59a) for a term of 999 years from 25 April 1962 at a ground rent of ten shillings per annum [40].

On 18 March 1968 the lease was registered at HM Land Registry with title number NGL64840.

On 22 December 2016 the first applicants were registered at HM Land Registry as proprietors of the lease [23].

6. On 7 May 1962 a Mr [NAME] granted to [NAME] a lease of the first floor flat (59) for a term of 999 years from 25 March 1962 at a ground rent of ten shillings per annum [31].

On 11 July 1968 the lease was registered at HM Land Registry with title number NGL76976.

On 26 August 1998 the second applicants were registered at HM Land Registry as proprietors of the lease [27].

7. The freehold interest is not registered at HM Land Registry. The applicants assert, and the court has accepted, that the owner(s) of the freehold interest cannot be found or their identity ascertained. Evidently some deeds executed between May 1962 and November 1974 are indicative that at some time the freehold interest was transferred to the then owners of the two leases but there is no clear chain of title.

3 8. On 12 December 2018 the applicants (as claimants) filed a claim in the County Court at Wandsworth (Claim No E01WT856) in which they sought a vesting order pursuant to s26(1) of the Act.

On 24 January 2019 District Judge Hugman sitting at the County Court at Wandsworth made an order inter alia:

“1. …

2. The proceedings be transferred to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) [ADDRESS] … for determination of the appropriate premium payable and the terms of the transfer. The relevant valuation date under the Act shall be 12 December 2018.

3. …

4. …”

9. On 28 January 2019 the tribunal received an [NAME] form dated 25 January 2019. Directions were duly issued. In compliance with those directions the tribunal has received a bundle of material documents.

The appropriate sum 10. S27(5) of the Act provides that the appropriate sum which is to be paid into court pursuant to s27(3) in respect of any interest is the aggregate of:

(a) such amount as may be determined by the [tribunal] to be the price which would be payable in respect of that interest in accordance with Schedule 6 if the interest were being acquired in pursuance of such notice as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b); and (b) any amounts or estimated amounts, determined by such a tribunal as being, at any time of execution of the conveyance, due to the transferor from the tenants of his premises … due under or in respect of their leases or under or in respect of agreements collateral thereto.

11. At [113] there is a valuation report prepared by Mr [NAME] of [NAME]. Mr [NAME] recites the relevant history, the length of the term of the leases and the very modest ground rent £0.50 pa payable under each lease. Mr [NAME] concludes that the cost of collection of the ground rent exceeds its value such that value is nominal only. He assesses it at £0.00.

12. From a commercial perspective that may a logical conclusion. We have to carry out a statutory valuation in accordance with Schedule 6 of the Act. We recognise the cost of collection point and we arrive at a capitalisation rate of 8%. Accordingly, we arrive at a value of £12.50.

4 13. As to s27(5)(b) no evidence of any ground rent or service charge arrears or other sums payable under the leases has been put before us. The evidence before us is the effect that no landlord has taken any active interest in the Property since prior to 1974 and the Property has been managed on a day to day basis by the lessees as regards insurance and repairs and maintenance. In these circumstances and having regard to the current formal requirements concerning demands for ground rent and to the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980 we find that there are no other sums payable under s27(5)(b) of the Act.

14. Accordingly, we determine that the appropriate sum for the purposes of s27(5) is £12.50.

The conveyance 15. The draft conveyance submitted to us is at [135 – 137].

It is approved subject to the following amendments:

Box 4 should record the Transferor as being: “[NAME] and [NAME] or other the current owners of the freehold interest being persons unknown”

Box 9 shall record that the Transferor transfers with: “limited title guarantee”

16. The first amendment is to make it clear that the transfer is made by the current owner(s) whoever they might be.

The second amendment is to accord with the provisions of paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 7 to the Act.

Judge John Hewitt 12 March 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 Tribunal 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 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 [NAME]

5 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.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 appropriate sum to be paid into court is £12.50.
  • The tribunal approved the draft conveyance with specific amendments.
  • The transferor in the conveyance should be identified as the current owners of the freehold interest, even if unknown.
  • The transferor should transfer with "limited title guarantee" to comply with the Act.
  • No other sums were payable under the leases, considering the lack of landlord interest and formal demand requirements.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The valuation report's conclusion that the ground rent value was nominal was not accepted for statutory valuation.

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 as £12.50 and the terms of the conveyance for leasehold reform.

Who was involved?

The claimants sought a vesting order and the respondents were persons unknown.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the valuation of the leasehold interest, concluding that the cost of collecting ground rent exceeded its value.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the valuation of the leasehold interest, considering the low ground rent and the cost of collecting it.

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

The decision was for the claimants.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can seek a determination of the appropriate sum and terms of the conveyance for leasehold reform.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation report prepared by a chartered surveyor was crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It is recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.

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.