VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Varies 107 Residential Leases for Correct Floor Plan Labelling

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal corrected the floor plan labels for 107 residential leases at St Crispin a person. This change was made to align the lease documents with the actual layout of the buildings, ensuring accuracy and fairness for all leaseholders.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord can vary residential leases under section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 if it does not prejudice the leaseholders and is reasonable.

Topics

lease variationfloor plan correction

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s.37

An application can be made to a tribunal to vary leases if it meets certain conditions. These include that the leases must be long leases of flats under the same landlord, and the application must be supported by a majority of the parties involved. For applications involving less than nine leases, all but one party must agree. For applications involving more than eight leases, at least 75% of the parties must agree and no more than 10% can oppose it.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s.38

If the tribunal finds the grounds for variation satisfactory, it may make an order to vary the leases as specified in the application. However, the tribunal will not make such an order if it would substantially prejudice a party to the application or someone not involved, or if it would not be reasonable to make the variation.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The First-tier Tribunal varied 107 residential leases to correct floor plan labelling errors.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal varied 107 residential leases to correct floor plan labelling errors under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The decision was made by Judge Shepherd on 5th August 2020.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference

CAM/34UF/LVT/2020/0001 Property : St [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] : 5th August 2020

DETERMINATION

Order 1. The leases are varied in accordance with the draft at page 8 of the [RESPONDENT]. The Applicant shall serve a copy of this decision on all of the leasesholders detailed in the [RESPONDENT] within 28 days of receipt of this order and shall notify the Tribunal that they have done so. Reasons

2

2. The Applicant seeks to vary 107 leases in respect of blocks 1,2 and 3 of St [NAME]. The variation is sought pursuant to section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

3. There is an error in the plans to the properties which have been incorrectly labelled. The floor plans entitled Plan B are incorrectly labelled so that the Ground Floor is referred to as Lower Ground, the First Floor is referred to as the Upper Ground Floor, the Second Floor has been referred to as the First Floor, the Third Floor is referred to as the Second Floor and the Fourth floor was incorrectly labelled the Third Floor.

4. The Land Registry has approved revised plans however in order to utilise them the plans in the Leases for all existing registered leases in Blocks 1,2 and 3 in the [NAME] need to be amended.

5. There are 107 current leaseholders in Blocks 1,2 and 3. Of these 90 have consented to the [RESPONDENT] and 4 have abstained. There are no objections to the [RESPONDENT]. Accordingly 84.11% of leaseholders consent to the variation. There are 13 empty properties which will need the benefit of the amended lease.

6. The Tribunal is satisfied that the object to be achieved by the variation cannot be satisfactorily achieved unless all the leases are varied to the same effect ( s.37(3) LTA 1987). The variation sought will not prejudice anyone and it is a reasonable variation (s.38 (6)). No compensation is payable ( .38(10). Rights of appeal

3

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]), then a written [RESPONDENT] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The [RESPONDENT] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the [RESPONDENT].

If the [RESPONDENT] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [RESPONDENT] 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 [RESPONDENT] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [RESPONDENT] 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 making the [RESPONDENT] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [RESPONDENT] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]).

Judge Shepherd August 2020

📊 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 landlord varies the lease under section 37 without prejudicing the leaseholders.
  • Works are considered urgent and necessary to prevent a serious issue.
  • There is no substantial prejudice to the leaseholders.
  • The landlord seeks dispensation from consultation requirements under relevant acts.
  • Rent determination considers the property's condition and market comparables.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant's application for rent increase is struck out due to incorrect notice form.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to vary the leases to correct floor plan labelling errors.

Who was involved?

The landlord and leaseholders at St Crispin Retirement Village were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to vary the leases because correcting the floor plan labels would not prejudice the leaseholders and was deemed reasonable.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 37 and Section 38 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the variation would not harm the leaseholders and was reasonable.

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

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can seek to vary their leases if there are inaccuracies in the floor plan labels.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of consent from leaseholders and approval from the Land Registry mattered.

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 always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving lease variations.

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.