VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Freehold Transfer Price Set at £131 by First-tier Tribunal

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal set the price for transferring the freehold interest of a property at £131. This decision was made under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

⚖️ Legal holding

The appropriate sum to be paid into Court for the transfer of the freehold interest is determined based on the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Topics

freehold interestleasehold reformproperty valuation

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.27(5)

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the purchase price for transferring the freehold interest of a property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the purchase price for transferring the freehold interest of a property located at 9 Piebridge Way, Leeds, to be £131, based on the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference : MAN/00DA/OAF/2021/0011

Property : 9 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] : [APPELLANT]

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 9 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] be determined at £131.

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

The Application

1. The Applicant, [APPELLANT], 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 [APPELLANT] b. The Judgement of the Court c. The Register of Title, indicating, amongst other things that the purchase price was £209,995.00 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 an end-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) £210,000 Site Value at 35% of CMV £73,500 [NAME] 140 yrs at £0 £0 First Revervsion 210000 @35% £73,500 Deferment @4.75% is £3,491 x [NAME] for 50 yrs deferred 140 yrs at 4.75% 18.98 x .0015081 £100 Second Reversion To £210,000 in 190 yrs Deferred 190 yrs @ 4.75% £210,000 x .000148 £31 Freehold Purchase Price £131

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 purchase price for the freehold interest was determined at £131.
  • The Tribunal used its expertise to assess the purchase price.
  • The lease was for 500 years from 1661, with an unexpired term of 140 years.
  • The current market value of the property was assessed at £210,000.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal decided the appropriate sum to be paid for transferring the freehold interest of a property.

Who was involved?

The claimant sought to transfer the freehold interest of their property, while the respondents were persons unknown.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, determining the appropriate sum to be £131.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The valuation of the property and the calculation of the appropriate sum were the central arguments.

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 can use this decision as a precedent for calculating the appropriate sum for transferring the 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?

Decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

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

It is recommended to seek legal 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.