VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Freehold Purchase Price Determined Under Leasehold Reform Act

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal determined the purchase price for the freehold interest of a property under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The price was set at £118 after considering various factors including the current market value and site value.

⚖️ Legal holding

Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, a tenant is entitled to a fair purchase price for the freehold interest of their property.

Topics

leasehold reformfreehold purchase price

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.27(5)

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the purchase price for the freehold interest of a property under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the purchase price for the freehold interest of a property located at 11 Piebridge Way, Leeds LS12 6ES, under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The price was set at £118.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference : MAN/00DA/OAF/2021/0010

Property : 11 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants : [redacted] : [COMPANY]

Respondents : [redacted]

Type of Application : A determination of amount of the appropriate sum to be paid into Court under the section 27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Tribunal Members : Tribunal Judge Phillip Barber

Tribunal Member [NAME] and venue : Determined without a hearing on 23 August 2021

Date of Decision : 23 August 2021

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Order That the purchase price for the freehold interest of 11 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] be determined at £118.

That the Applicant shall pay the purchase price into Court pursuant to s27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

The Application

1. The Applicants, [NAME] and [NAME], issued an application in the Leeds County Court on the 26 February 2021 for an order under s27 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“the Act”) and on the 05 May 2021 the District Judge transferred the matter to the Tribunal for a determination as to the amount of the appropriate sum to be paid into Court under s27(5) of the Act for transfer of the Freehold of the Property, the Landlord being missing.

2. The Tribunal is therefore asked by the Applicant to determine the single issue of the price payable for the transfer of the freehold interest pursuant to s.21 of the Act.

3. The Applicant’s solicitors provided a detailed bundle of documents for the purposes of the application, which include appropriate photographs and extensive details as to the location etc. of the Property.

4. The Application was listed to be determined on the papers alone and without an inspection of the Property.

The Evidence

5. The evidence provided by the Applicants included:

a. A witness statement by [NAME] b. The Judgement of the Court c. The Register of Title, indicating, amongst other things that the purchase price was £199,995.00 d. Witness evidence from [NAME] setting out the circumstances of the purchase and a chronology of events.

6. The Lease is for 500 years from the 25 July 1661. The ground rent is one peppercorn per year, but no ground rent has ever been paid by nor demanded from the Applicants.

7. The photograph of Property shows it to be a terrace house.

The Determination

8. Utilising its expertise, the Tribunal is in a position to assess the purchase price as follows:

Term 500 Years from 25/7/1661 Unexpired Term 140 years Ground Rent Nil Current Market Value (CMV) £200,000 Site Value at 32.5% of CMV £65,000 Valuation Term YP 140 yrs at £0 £0 First Revervsion 200000 @32.5% £65,000 Deferment @4.75% is 3087 x YP for 50 yrs deferred 140 yrs at 4.75% 18.98 x .0015081 £88 Second Reversion To £200,000 in 190 yrs Deferred 190 yrs @ 4.75% £200,000 x .000148 £30 Freehold Purchase Price £118

9. A determination is therefore made in the above terms.

Signed

Phillip Barber Judge of the First-tier Tribunal

23 August 2021

📊 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 claim is made under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
  • The Tribunal determines the appropriate sum for transferring a freehold interest.
  • The claim involves the right to purchase a freehold interest in the property.
  • The case pertains to the valuation of the freehold interest according to the act.
  • The claim includes the entitlement to extend a lease under relevant legislation.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The case focuses on determining a fair rent rather than purchasing a freehold interest.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal determined the purchase price for the freehold interest of a property under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant seeking to purchase the freehold interest of their property.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the evidence provided, including the current market value and site value of the property.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 was applied to determine the purchase price.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the valuation of the property, including its market value and site value.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider the same factors when determining the purchase price for their property's freehold interest.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs, witness statements, and the register of title were important pieces of evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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.