VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Terms for Collective Enfranchisement

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the terms for a group of tenants wanting to buy their freehold collectively. The tribunal set these terms under the 1993 Act, despite the landlord not engaging with the process.

⚖️ Legal holding

The terms proposed within the transfer are proper and reasonable under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

Topics

collective enfranchisementleasehold reform

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.24

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal determined the terms of acquisition for collective enfranchisement under the 1993 Act.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the terms of acquisition for collective enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, noting that the respondent had failed to engage with the process and was thus barred from further disputing the terms.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/00HH/OCE/2018/0021

Property

:

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] [APPELLANT]

:

[COUNSEL] [RESPONDENT]

Respondent

:

[redacted]

Representative

:

Mrs [COUNSEL] of Application

:

Collective Enfranchisement

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Judge [NAME] of Determination

:

10th July 2020

DETERMINATION

2

Background

1. The Applicant seeks a determination of the premium and terms of acquisition pursuant to section 24 of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

2. The application was first made in July 2018. Various sets of directions and stays have been issued by the tribunal. Eventually the premium was agreed between the parties which left the terms of the transfer to be agreed.

3. Despite directions being issued the respondent has failed to engage with the process. The final directions were made on 22nd January 2020. The Respondent was required to send any representations as to the form of transfer by 30th January 2020. In default they were de-barred from further disputing the terms of the transfer.

4. No representations have been received from the Respondent. The respondent accordingly has been de-barred from disputing the transfer proposed by the Applicant.

Determination

5. The tribunal has considered the application, supporting documents and the tribunal file. Annexed to this determination is a copy of the transfer.

6. The tribunal is satisfied that the terms proposed within the transfer annexed to this determination are proper and reasonable terms of acquisition under the Leasehold reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The transfer annexed to this determination records the terms of acquisition.

7. The tribunal notes that the Applicant has previously indicated it wishes to pursue an application pursuant to Rule 13 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules. Any such application should be made within 28 days of the date of this detmerination.

Judge [NAME]

3

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

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.

2. 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.

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

4. 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 works proposed are urgent and necessary.
  • There is no undue prejudice caused to tenants.
  • The landlord seeks dispensation from consultation requirements under relevant acts.
  • The terms proposed within the transfer are deemed proper and reasonable.
  • The tribunal allows claims related to the reasonableness of lease terms and service charges.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No applicable factors listed in provided cases.)

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided the terms for a group of tenants to acquire their freehold collectively.

Who was involved?

The tenants (the claimant) and the landlord (the respondent).

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the terms proposed by the tenants were proper and reasonable, as the landlord failed to engage with the process.

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 fact that the landlord failed to engage with the process was crucial.

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

The decision was for the tenants.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can rely on the terms set by the tribunal if the landlord fails to engage with the process.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The supporting documents and the tribunal file were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person can appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days of receiving written reasons for the decision.

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

Yes, it's recommended to get a 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.