VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Ground Rent Not Payable Unless Demanded - First-tier Tribunal Decision

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that ground rent is only payable if the landlord demands it. They also corrected some mistakes in their earlier decision.

⚖️ Legal holding

No ground rent is payable unless demanded.

Topics

ground rentclerical errors

Provisions

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.26Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.27The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 rule 50

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal reviewed its decision regarding ground rent and corrected references to sections of the Act.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) reviewed its decision regarding ground rent, clarifying that no ground rent is payable unless demanded, and corrected references to sections of the Act.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : VG/LON/00BB/OCE/2021/0166 Property :

Flats A and B, 222 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants

: [redacted] [COUNSEL] [NAME] (2) Representative : [RESPONDENT], [ADDRESS] : [RESPONDENT] [NAME] (Missing Landlord) Type of application : Application for permission to appeal Tribunal member : [NAME] (Valuer Chairman) Date of decision :

25 February 2022

DECISION

Covid-19 pandemic: description of determination This has been a remote determination on the papers which has been not objected to by the applicant. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE, A face-to-face hearing was not held because no-one requested the same, all issues could be determined on paper, and it is not usual Tribunal practice to hold hearings for permissions to appeal. The additional documents that I was referred to comprise 2 pages.

2

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL 1. The tribunal has considered the applicants’ request for permission to appeal dated 19 January 2022 and, having reviewed its decision and being satisfied that a ground of appeal is likely to be successful, it hereby (a) sets aside decision (3) “The amount due to the transferor from the tenants is £1,800.” (b) remakes decision (3) as follows: “The amount due to the transferor from the tenants in respect of ground rent is Nil.” (c) Amends paragraphs 21 and 22 and in particular finds that the total amount to be paid into court is £72,527. (d) Under rule 50 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, any references to sections 50 and 51 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the Act”) shall be amended to read sections 26 and 27 of that Act.

2. Having done so, the Tribunal determines that it will review its decision; and a copy of the reviewed and amended decision, re-dated 25 February 2022, is attached.

3. It follows from the above, that the request for permission to appeal is refused.

REASONS FOR THE

DECISION 4. The applicants have submitted that by virtue of section 166 of the Act no ground rent is payable unless demanded. As I found that no such ground rent had been demanded, I am satisfied that the applicants’ submission is correct. It is unnecessary for me to make further findings as to the relevant limitation period.

5. I accept that owing to a clerical error, incorrect sections of the Act were referenced.

6. The reviewed and amended decision attracts fresh rights of appeal, in exactly the same way as the original decision. This means that the applicant may make a request to this Tribunal for permission to appeal against the reviewed and amended decision; and such a request must be received by the Tribunal within 28 days of the date it is sent to the applicant.

3 Name: Mr [APPELLANT]: 25 February 2022

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 tribunal found that no ground rent is payable unless it has been formally demanded.
  • The tribunal accepted that incorrect sections of the Act were referenced due to a clerical error.
  • The tribunal decided that the total amount to be paid into court is £72,527.
  • The tribunal was satisfied that a ground of appeal was likely to be successful.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision clarified that ground rent is only payable if demanded by the landlord.

Who was involved?

The case involved tenants and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that ground rent is not payable unless demanded, based on the relevant section of the Act.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 26 and 27 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that ground rent is only payable if demanded by the landlord.

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

The decision was for the tenants.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

For tenants in a similar situation, ground rent is only payable if the landlord demands it.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents related to the demand for ground rent were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions like this can be appealed within 28 days of the decision being sent to the applicant.

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

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

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.