Statutory Costs Awarded for Serving Initial Notice

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/45UF/OC9/2020/0018

Property

:

8 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[COUNSEL] [APPELLANT]

Respondent: [redacted]

(1) [NAME] (2) [RESPONDENT]

:

[COUNSEL] [NAME] of Application

:

Landlord’s costs lease extension

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Judge D. R. Whitney

Date of Determination

:

5th March 2021

DETERMINATION

2 Background

1. The Applicant seeks a determination of the statutory costs due to them for service of an Initial Notice dated 12th April 2019.

2. Directions were given listing the matter for a case management hearing. Directions were issued on the 27th November 2020 for the determination of this matter.

3. A statutory notice seeking a lease extension was served on behalf of the First Respondent. This provided that the name and address for service in connection with that application was [NAME] [NAME]. A counter notice was served disputing the right to acquire a new lease and it would appear no court or tribunal proceedings were begun within the required period. The Applicant seeks their statutory costs.

4. The Applicant has complied with the directions. No response has been received from either Respondent. The Tribunal has received an electronic bundle and references in [] are to pages within that bundle.

Determination

5. The Application sets out the costs claimed as follows:

Legal costs £2,400 Intermediate leaseholder’s costs £312 Valuers costs £600 Disbursements £55.80

Total £3367.80

6. Details of the costs are found in a letter to [NAME] Solicitors [88] and within the application [8]. A breakdown of the amount and relevant invoices is within the bundle [75-86].

7. The background is that Notice was served by a leaseholder Mr [NAME] dated 12th April 2019 [13-15]. The Notice provided that [NAME] Solicitors (“[NAME]”) were the person appointed to deal with the Notice and their address was given for service. A counter notice was served disputing various matters and as a result of the fact no court or tribunal proceedings were begun within the required time periods the claim was deemed withdrawn.

8. The Bundle contains Land Registry entries. The freeholder, [APPELLANT] played no part as the competent landlord was the Applicant who hold a long lease over the subject

3 Property. There was also an intermediate leaseholder [COMPANY] whose solicitors seek a modest sum by way of costs.

9. It appears from Land Registry entries [62 and 63] that Mr [RESPONDENT] sold his interest to the Second Respondent on 1st May 2019 with their interest being registered on 10th May 2019. It appears then on 4th July 2019 the Second Respondent assigned its interest to [RESPONDENT] [NAME]. I set this out by way of explanation.

10. [NAME]’s address was given for service although it seems from correspondence within the bundle that they acted for the Second Respondent. Within an email dated 31st March 2020 [93] Mr [COUNSEL] the solicitor with conduct at [NAME] confirmed the benefit of the Notice had been assigned by the First Respondent to the Second Respondent. Mr [RESPONDENT] simply asserted his client had sold its interest in the Property.

11. Copies of these proceedings were sent to the Respondents at [NAME]. No response has been received, despite the Tribunal directions requiring [NAME] to confirm whether or not they remain instructed.

12. I am satisfied that both Respondents have received copies of this application and the directions. TRs address was that given within the Initial Notice. [NAME] have been invited to communicate on this issue, including whether they remain instructed. In my judgement it is appropriate to determine this application as to the level of reasonable costs.

13. I have considered whether both parties are properly Respondents. Plainly the First Respondent as the person who gave the Notice is properly named. As to the Second Respondent given the correspondence from [NAME] (some of which is referenced above) acknowledging that an assignment had taken place to the Second Respondent and that [NAME] acted on their behalf I am satisfied that they are properly named as a Respondent.

14. Turning to the legal costs I have considered carefully all of the documents within the bundle including the breakdown of costs and the hourly rates utilised. The solicitors for the Applicant are [NAME]. The hourly rates are £495 for a partner, £395 for an assistant solicitor and £200 for a paralegal all per hour and subject to VAT. The total time spent is 4 and a half hours which included preparation of a counter notice and draft lease. Certain modest disbursements were also incurred for which invoices are attached.

15. Whilst certainly the hourly rates are at the higher end of the scale of rates which would be allowed, I am on this occasion persuaded that the costs claimed are reasonable.

4 16. I note a modest charge is included for the Intermediate leaseholder’s solicitors. In my judgment this charge is reasonable.

17. I have also considered the valuation fee. In my judgment a fee of £500 plus VAT is modest. It is in my opinion reasonable.

18. I determine the reasonable cost payable to the Applicant under Section 60 of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 in respect of Initial Notice dated 12th April 2019 served by [NAME] is £3367.80.

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. 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 [EMAIL] being the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. 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.

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

4. 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.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT