VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Freehold Interest Valuation Determined by First-tier Tribunal

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided the price for acquiring the freehold interest in a property under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The valuation process followed the statutory formula and professional guidance.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair valuation for the freehold interest under s.9(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, as calculated by the Tribunal in this case.

Topics

tenancyfreehold interestvaluation

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.9

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the price for the freehold interest to be £169 based on the valuation approach under s.9(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the price payable for the freehold interest in a property under s.9 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The valuation was based on the statutory formula and professional guidance.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER

(RESIDENTIAL PROIEPRTY)

Case Reference : MAN/00DA/OAF/2022/0020 Premises : 14 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicants : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT].

Respondent: [redacted] interest under s.9 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Tribunal Members : Judge P [NAME] [NAME] of Decision : 18 October 2022

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

Decision

The price payable by the Applicants for the freehold interest in 14 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is £169.

Introduction

1. By an order made on 21 March 2022 in the County Court at Leeds the claim between [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] (“the Applicants”) in the

2

present case) v [RESPONDENT] (“the Respondents” in the present case) under case number J00LS079 was transferred to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to determine the price payable for the freehold interest in 14 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (“the Premises”) in accordance with s.9 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“the Act”).

2. The Applicants are the tenant of the Premises, which comprises “a house” within the meaning of s.2(1) of Act. The Applicants’ tenancy is a “long tenancy” within the meaning of s.3(1) of the Act and at the date of claim, the Applicants have been the tenant under a long tenancy for at least two years and are the freehold owners of the remainder of the house. The Applicants are prevented from giving notice of their desire to have the freehold transferred to them because the person to be served with notice cannot be found and their identity cannot be ascertained.

3. By virtue of s.27(1) of the Act, on 21 March 2022, the County Court, vested the freehold interest in the leasehold part of the Premises in the Applicants.

The Premises

4. From the information provided by the Applicants, the Premises is a three-story three semi-detached house built about three years ago by [NAME]. It comprises living room; kitchen; cloakroom and wc, three bedrooms and two bathrooms with wc and has a driveway which can accommodate two parked cars.

5. The leasehold title to the Premises is registered at HM Land Registry under title number YY1200738. The lease of the land which includes the Premises was granted on 25 March 1661 for a term of 500 years from 25 July 1661. The original parties to the lease were (1) [NAME] and (2) [NAME]. The remainder of the term granted by the lease was purchased by [COMPANY]. In 2014 for the purpose of developing the site and building a number of properties including the Premises.

6. On 4 April 2019, an assignment of part of the land comprised in the lease was made in respect of the Premises between [COMPANY]. and the Applicants. When the Applicants purchased the freehold of the Premises, they had no knowledge that the developer only owned the leasehold interest in the land on which the Premises is built. The developer has admitted it is not the freehold owner and cannot transfer the freehold interest to the Applicants.

7. For the purposes of the applicable financial limit specified in s.1(1)(a)(ii) of the Act on the date the tenancy was entered into the value of “R” did not exceed £25,000 under the statutory formula under s.1(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. The annual

3

ground rent payable under the lease is one peppercorn and is therefore less than £250 per year and a such is a tenancy at “a low rent” in accordance with s.4(1)(ii) of the Act.

Valuation approach

8. The valuation approach under s.9(1) of the Act has three stages: (1) capitalise the annual rent until the expiry of the term of the lease – referred to as “term 1”, (2) is to calculate the modern ground rent and capitalise this for 50 years and then defer the capitalized sum to the date of valuation – referred to as “ term 2”, (3) is to defer the market value of the standing house for term 1 plus term 2 which is referred to as “the reversion”.

9. The Tribunal has calculated the modern ground rent by the “standing house” approach which is to estimate (a) the entirety value of the property – the market value if the site is fully developed, (b) the site value by taking a percentage of the entirety value, and (c) taking a percentage of the site value.

10. The Tribunal considers that the site is fully developed, and that the entirety value is the market value of the standing house.

11. The Tribunal has not inspected the Premises and has relied on the evidence presented by the Applicants, including their witness statements in the County Court and their expert valuer Mr [NAME] BA FRICS. Mr [NAME] appears to have adopted the correct approach to the valuation as provided in the legislation and in accordance with relevant professional guidance.

The price to be paid for the freehold interest

12. The lease is for 500 years from 25 July 1661 at a peppercorn rent.

13. The valuation date is 14 January 2022, the date the application was made to the court for a vesting order.

14. The unexpired term of the lease at the valuation date is approximately 139 years.

15. The basis for the valuation is s.9(1) of the Act which assumes a 50-year lease extension at a modern ground rent.

16. The Tribunals valuation is:

Term 1 ground rent for £139 years

£ pa £

4

Term 2 entirety value

£245,000

site apportionment @ 37.5%

£91,875

modern ground rent @ 4.75%

£4,364

YP 50 years deferred 139 years @4.75% 0.0300 £131

Reversion standing house value

£245,000

PV of £1 in 189 years @4.75%

0.000155 £38

Enfranchisement price (excluding costs)

£169

Judge P [NAME]

18 October 2022

RIGHT OF APPEAL

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.

If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, that 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.

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 applicants were the tenant of a house that met the legal definition for acquiring the freehold.
  • The applicants' tenancy was a "long tenancy" under the Act, and they had been the tenant for at least two years.
  • The annual ground rent was less than £250 per year, qualifying it as a tenancy at "a low rent".
  • The expert valuer adopted the correct valuation approach according to legislation and professional guidance.
  • The tribunal calculated the modern ground rent using the "standing house" approach.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided the price for acquiring the freehold interest in a property.

Who was involved?

The tenant sought to acquire the freehold interest, while the identity of the respondents could not be ascertained.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court used the statutory formula and professional guidance to determine the valuation.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.9 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The valuation approach under s.9 of the Act was crucial in determining the price.

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

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can follow the same valuation process to determine the price for acquiring the freehold interest.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the lease details, property value, and expert valuation report.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person can appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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.