VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Entitled to Recover Reasonable Costs Under Leasehold Act

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that a tenant can recover reasonable costs related to a new lease under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993. In this case, the tenant was awarded £4,875.60 in costs.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to recover reasonable costs incurred in connection with a new lease under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

Topics

costs determinationleasehold reform actproperty chamber

Provisions

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal determined the costs payable by the respondent to the claimant to be reasonable in the sum of £4,875.60.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined that a tenant is entitled to recover reasonable costs incurred in connection with a new lease under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The costs payable by the respondent to the claimant were set at £4,875.60.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AH/OC9/2025/0650 Property : 80B [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] : [APPELLANT]: IK JM PIT0201 Respondent : [redacted] : [NAME]: NM:03646/10/24 Type of [NAME] : Determination of costs pursuant to s.60(1) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. Tribunal member : Judge Tagliavini Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 16 September 2025

DECISION

2 Decision of the tribunal (1) The tribunal determines the costs payable by the respondent to the applicant to be reasonable in the sum of £4,875.60.

_____________________________________________________ The [NAME] 1. This is an [NAME] made pursuant to s.60 of the Leasehold Reform,

Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (‘the 1993 Act’) seeking

costs in the sum of £4,875.60. The background 2. On 16 October 2024 the respondent [NAME], [NAME], served a Section 42 Notice upon the applicant [NAME], [NAME]

[APPELLANT]. The notice was allegedly defective as it provided for the

[NAME] to respond with a s45 counter notice within 3 weeks of service

of the s42 notice and not 2 months’ as required by s45 of the 1993 Act. 3. Despite being notified of the defect on 7 November 2024, the

[NAME] have failed to continue with the claim or provide

any response to the applicant and have failed to respond to the

freeholders claim for costs. 4. The costs claim for £4,875.60 is set out in two schedules in the indexed

and paginated bundle of documents accompanying the [NAME]. The hearing 5. Neither party requested an oral hearing and the [NAME] was determined on the papers provided by the applicant in the [NAME] and other accompanying documents as no hearing bundle was provided and the respondent made no representations. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 6. In reaching its decision the tribunal had regard to s.60 of the 1993 Act which states:

Costs incurred in connection with new lease to be paid

by tenant.

3

(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 [NAME] 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

[NAME] would be void.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) any costs incurred by a

[NAME] 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 the

appropriate tribunal incurs in connection with the proceedings.

(6)In this section “[NAME],” 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.

4

6. In reaching its decision the tribunal also had regard to the applicant’s Schedule of Costs which claimed for the following items:

Reviewing the section 42 notice served by the tenant

Reviewing OCEs

Investigating statutory compliance of the section 42 notice,

including date checks

Meeting and corresponding with [NAME] and advising

regarding the invalidity of the notice

Drafting formal letter to the tenant’s solicitors advising of the

notice’s invalidity

Preparing schedule of costs

Grade A engaged 4 hours @ £350 per hour £1,400.00

Grade D engaged 5.3 hours @ £350 per hour £1,113.00

Surveyor’s costs (estimated)

£500.00

£3,013.00

VAT

£615.60

Less; Surveyor’s costs - not incurred

£500.00

Sub-total

£3,115.60

5

The costs of [NAME] 8 [NAME] include:

reviewing file;

preparing, checking and finalising Leasehold 8 [NAME] form;

collating bundle of documents and correspondence to support

[NAME]; and corresponding with the Tribunal, the

[NAME] and the [NAME].

Grade A Engaged 3 hours @ £350 per hour

£1,050

VAT

£210.00 £

£1,260

The [NAME] claims a total of:

£4,875.60

7. Although the tribunal considered the number of hours (or part) spent by both a Grade A and a Grade D fee earners to be high, it did not consider them to be excessive. Further, the tribunal considered the hourly rate of each fee earner to be within the range of reasonableness.

8. In the absence of any engagement by the respondent in this [NAME] and any objection, the tribunal determines the costs payable by the respondent to the applicant to be reasonable in the sum of £4,875.60.

Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 16 September 2025

6

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) 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 (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-[NAME]-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. 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 (Lands Chamber).

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 10 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 tenant is liable for reasonable costs incurred by the landlord in connection with a new lease under the 1993 Act.
  • The tenant's notice was defective because it provided an incorrect timeframe for the landlord to respond.
  • The landlord's claim for costs was justified because the tenant failed to continue with the claim or respond to the landlord.
  • The number of hours spent by the fee earners, both Grade A and Grade D, was considered reasonable by the tribunal.
  • The hourly rates for the fee earners were within the range of reasonableness.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The respondent did not engage in the application or object to the costs claimed.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision determined that the tenant is entitled to recover reasonable costs related to a new lease under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the tenant's costs were reasonable based on the evidence presented and the applicable law.

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 claimant's demonstration that the costs were reasonable and incurred in connection with the new lease.

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 be able to recover reasonable costs if they can demonstrate that the costs were incurred in connection with a new lease.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents that mattered included the claimant's Schedule of Costs and the supporting documentation.

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 the recovery of costs under the Leasehold Reform Act 1.993.

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.