VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Costs Assessment Under Leasehold Reform Act 1993

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal assessed the costs payable by a tenant following a notice of claim for a new lease under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993. The tribunal ruled that the tenant owed £4034.21 including VAT for the landlord's reasonable costs.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to pay the landlord's reasonable costs incurred in connection with a new lease claim under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993.

Topics

costs assessmentleasehold reformproperty chamber

Provisions

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.60

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal assessed the costs payable by the tenant following a notice of claim for a new lease under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal assessed the costs payable by a tenant following a notice of claim for a new lease under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993. The tribunal determined that the tenant owed £4034.21 including VAT for the landlord's reasonable costs.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AE/OC9/2025/0659 Property : 14 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] : Not represented Type of [NAME] : Costs under Section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Tribunal members : Mr [NAME] [NAME] of determination and venue : 29 October 2025 at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 29 October 2025

DECISION

Summary of the tribunal’s decision (1) The amount of costs payable is £4034.21 including VAT Background 1. This is an [NAME] made by the applicant landlord pursuant to section 60(1) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the Act”) for assessment of the costs payable by the leaseholder

2 following a notice of claim for a new lease under section 42 of the Act which was deemed withdrawn as the Respondent did not apply to the tribunal in time to determine disputed matters.

2. By a notice of a claim dated 29 May 2024 served pursuant to section 42 of the Act, the applicant exercised the right for the grant of a new lease in respect of the subject property. At the time, the applicant held the existing lease for a term of 99 years from 29 September 1980. The applicant proposed to pay a premium of £35000 for the new lease with no other amounts under Schedule 13 of the Act.

3. On 2 August 2024, the respondent head leaseholder and competent landlord served a counter-notice admitting the validity of the claim and counter-proposed a premium of £22942 for the grant of a new lease.

4. Terms were not agreed, the leaseholder failed to apply to the tribunal by 1 February 2025 and the claim was deemed withdrawn 5. On 1 May 2025 the applicant applied to the tribunal for an assessment of the costs payable. The issues The hearing 6. The case has been decided on the papers [NAME] use of the electronic documents received which consist of a bundle prepared by the applicant. No correspondence has been received from the respondent. The claim 7. The applicant has submitted a costs bill totalling £4034.21 including VAT made up of • £2340.00 solicitors fees, • landlords valuation fee £1650 • Land registry £25.20 • Courier £49.01

3 The Law 8. Section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 provides 60 Costs incurred in connection with new lease to be paid by tenant. (1)Where a notice is given under section 42, then (subject to the provisions of this section) the tenant by whom it is given shall be liable, to the extent that they have been incurred by any relevant person in pursuance of the notice, for the reasonable costs of and incidental to any of the following matters, namely— (a)any investigation reasonably undertaken of the tenant’s right to a new lease; (b)any valuation of the tenant’s flat obtained for the purpose of fixing the premium or any other amount payable by virtue of Schedule 13 in connection with the grant of a new lease under section 56; (c)the grant of a new lease under that section; but this subsection shall not apply to any costs if on a sale made voluntarily a stipulation that they were to be borne by the purchaser would be void. (2)For the purposes of subsection (1) any costs incurred by a relevant person in respect of professional services rendered by any person shall only be regarded as reasonable if and to the extent that costs in respect of such services might reasonably be expected to have been incurred by him if the circumstances had been such that he was personally liable for all such costs. (3)Where by virtue of any provision of this Chapter the tenant’s notice ceases to have effect, or is deemed to have been withdrawn, at any time, then (subject to subsection (4)) the tenant’s liability under this section for costs incurred by any person shall be a liability for costs incurred by him down to that time. (4)A tenant shall not be liable for any costs under this section if the tenant’s notice ceases to have effect by virtue of section 47(1) or 55(2). (5)A tenant shall not be liable under this section for any costs which a party to any proceedings under this Chapter before [F1the appropriate tribunal] incurs in connection with the proceedings.

4 (6)In this section “relevant person”, in relation to a claim by a tenant under this Chapter, means the landlord for the purposes of this Chapter, any other landlord (as defined by section 40(4)) or any third party to the tenant’s lease. The tribunal’s determination 9. The tribunal determines that the recoverable costs are the landlords solicitors fees and disbursements for investigating the tenant’s right to a new lease and costs in preparing a new lease, and the landlords valuation fee.

10. An itemised solicitors bill has been provided and the tribunal is satisfied that the hours spent and rates are appropriate for the matter. Similarly the disbursements are considered reasonable and the valuation fee is in line with previous decisions of this tribunal.

11. There are no representations from the respondent disputing any of the items.

12. The claim is therefore allowed in full in the sum of £4034.21 inclusive of VAT

Name: [NAME]: 29 October 2025

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

5 If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]).

📊 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

  • Tenant entitled to challenge the reasonableness of service charges under their lease agreement.
  • Tenant entitled to pay service charges for expenses reasonably incurred in maintaining common areas and amenities under their lease agreement.
  • Landlord granted dispensation from consultation requirements if the tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so and no prejudice will be suffered.
  • Tenant entitled to pay landlord's reasonable costs incurred in response to a lease extension application under Section 60 of the 1993 Act.
  • Tenant entitled to reasonable costs under section 60(1) of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal decided that the tenant owed £4034.21 including VAT for the landlord's reasonable costs.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the Leasehold Reform Act 1993, which requires tenants to pay reasonable costs incurred by the landlord in connection with a new lease claim.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, specifically section 60, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the reasonableness of the costs incurred by the landlord.

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

The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should expect to pay reasonable costs if they initiate a new lease claim under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the landlord's costs bill, which detailed the solicitors' fees, valuation fees, and other disbursements.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

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

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving leasehold reform and cost assessments.

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.