VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Freehold Purchase Sum Set at £1 Due to Untraceable Landlord

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that a tenant could buy the freehold interest of their property for just £1 because the landlord could not be found. The decision was made due to the long-term nature of the lease and the fact that the freeholder would not lose any money annually from the sale.

⚖️ Legal holding

A qualifying tenant is entitled to purchase the freehold interest of a property for a nominal sum when the landlord cannot be found.

Topics

freehold purchasenominal compensationuntraceable landlord

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.21(1)Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.27(5)

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal determined a nominal sum of £1 for the purchase of the freehold interest due to the long reversion date and lack of annual loss to the freeholder.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined a nominal sum of £1 for the purchase of the freehold interest of a property where the landlord could not be located. The decision was based on the long reversion date and the fact that the freeholder incurred no material annual loss from the enfranchisement.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2014

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

AP/LON/00AC/OAF/2025/0003

Property :

19 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] : [APPELLANT] Respondent: [redacted] : Not applicable (missing landlord) Type of application : Application under sections 21(1) and 27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“the 1967 Act”) Tribunal members :

[NAME] Valuer Venue : Remote Date of paper determination :

25 April 2025

DECISION

Decision of the Tribunal (1) The tribunal determines that the price to be paid by the applicant for the purchase of the freehold on statutory terms is £1.

2

The Background 1. This is an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the 1967 Act pursuant to an order made by Deputy District Judge Sachdev sitting at the County Court at Barnet on 16 September 2024 (“the order”).

2. Sections 21(1) and 27(5) of the 1967 Act concerns claims for the purchase of the reversionary freehold interest where the relevant landlord cannot be found. It enables the court to make a vesting order in respect of any interests of the landlord which are liable to acquisition.

3. Under section 27(5)(a) of the 1967 Act, the role of the tribunal is to determine the appropriate sum to be paid into court in respect of the landlord’s interests. This to be done in accordance with section 9 of the 1967 Act.

4. The applicant in this matter is [APPELLANT]. He is the qualifying tenant of 19 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (“the Property”) with a long tenancy within the meaning of section 3(1) of the 1967 Act. The respondent freehold owner is Mr [RESPONDENT].

5. On 6th November 2023 following an Application to Court 2nd November 2023, a Part 8 Claim was issued at Barnet County Court for an order pursuant to section 21(1) of the 1967 Act seeking the freehold of the Property.

6. The applicant has been unable to ascertain the whereabouts of the respondents. The applicant subsequently applied for a vesting order under section 27(1) of the 1967 Act. The vesting order was granted subject to the determination of this tribunal.

7. The applicant has provided the tribunal with a valuation report prepared by Mr [NAME] of [NAME] which is dated 31 March 2025.

8. Mr [NAME] is of the view that the premium to be paid for the freehold is a nominal £1 as at the valuation date adopted of 6 November 2023. The Determination 9. After scrutiny the tribunal accepts the opinions expressed by Mr [NAME] in his valuation report dated 31st March 2025 . The tribunal acknowledge the long dated reversion of the freehold interest, which is more than 1946

3 years as at the valuation date. Any interest with such a long reversion date has a nominal current value to the freeholder. Under the lease terms the only annual sum payable by the leaseholder is a peppercorn payment and therefore the freeholder incurs no material annual loss from the enfranchisement. It is for these reasons the tribunal accept the opinion of the Valuation Expert and determine a nominal sum of £1 is payable as compensation on enfranchisement.

10.

Accordingly, the tribunal determines that the premium to be paid in respect of the purchase of the freehold of the Property is £1.

11. This matter should now be returned to the County Court sitting at Barnet under Claim Number K01BT573 for the final procedures to take place. [NAME]: 25 April 2025

4

RIGHTS OF APPEAL 1. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional Office within 28-days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the Decision to the person making the application.

3. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (ie, give the date, the property and the case number), 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 landlord cannot be found.
  • There is an urgent need for repairs or works.
  • Emergency remediation works can be undertaken without prior consultation if they are urgent.
  • A tenant may challenge the validity of a rent increase notice if it does not comply with statutory requirements.
  • It is reasonable to adjust the rent to reflect the actual condition of the property and any improvements made by the tenant.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided that the tenant could buy the freehold interest of the property for a nominal sum of £1.

Who was involved?

The tenant wanted to buy the freehold interest of their property, but the landlord could not be found.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the nominal sum should be £1 because the freeholder would not incur any significant annual loss from the sale.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967, specifically sections 21(1) and 27(5), were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the freeholder would not suffer any material annual loss from the sale of the freehold interest.

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 may also be able to purchase the freehold interest of their property for a nominal sum if the landlord cannot be found.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation report prepared by a chartered surveyor was important in determining the nominal sum.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days.

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases 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.