VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Granted Lease Extension with Premium Calculation

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, a tenant sought a lease extension for their flat. The Tribunal ruled that the tenant is entitled to a new lease extending the lease term by 90 years and subject to a peppercorn rent, with a premium of £6,980 to the a person and £186 to a person.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a new lease extending the lease term by 90 years and subject to a peppercorn rent under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

Topics

lease extensionpremium calculationnew lease terms

Provisions

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the premium for a lease extension and ordered the terms of the new lease.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined that a tenant is entitled to a new lease extending the lease term by 90 years and subject to a peppercorn rent, with a premium of £6,980 to the Competent Landlord and £186 to the Intermediate Landlord.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

Case Reference : MAN/00BS/OLR/2019/0006

Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] : [APPELLANT]

[NAME] : [RESPONDENT]

[NAME] : [RESPONDENT] of Application : Leasehold Reform, Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 – Section 51(1)-(5)

Date of the Application : 5 April 2019

Date of Application To County Court : 28 September 2018

Tribunal Members : Mrs [NAME] Mrs [NAME] of Decision : 26 July 2019

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

1. The Tribunal determines that the premium to be paid for a 90 year lease extension for the property known as [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the Property”) under the terms of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 is £6,980 to the [NAME] and a further £186 to [NAME] excluding costs.

2. The Tribunal orders the terms of the new lease to be granted to the Applicant pursuant to the order of Stockport County Court dated 28 September 2018 in claim number E02SK028 are:

Term: a term of 188 years, 7 months and 10 days which started on 11 May 1977 and which is to end on 21 December 2165, both dates inclusive.

Management: [COMPANY] to be added as a party to the lease as "the Management Company" and to covenant with the tenant and the landlord to observe and perform the obligations set out at Schedule 7 of the lease dated 10 August 1977 and made between [COMPANY] (1) and [NAME] (2)("the Lease").

[NAME]'s covenants: [NAME]'s covenant contained at clause 2 of the Lease to observe and perform the obligations set out in the Sixth Schedule to the Lease is to be repeated in the new lease as a covenant given by the tenant to and for the benefit of the Management Company and the landlord.

3. Remaining terms: as per the draft lease attached to this order.

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

4. The Applicant holds [ADDRESS], Stockport ("the Property") on the terms of the Lease from [NAME] at a ground rent of £15 pa. The Lease term ends on 21 December 2075.

5. [NAME] holds the reversionary interest in the Property on a lease ("the [NAME]") from the [NAME]. The [NAME] term ends on 31 December 2075.

6. The Applicant is entitled to a new lease extending the Lease term by 9o years and subject to a peppercorn rent, pursuant to section 39 and subsequent sections of the Leasehold Reform, Housing the Urban Development Act 1993 as amended ("the Act").

3 7. The [NAME] being a dissolved company, on 28 September 2018 the Applicant applied to the Stockport County Court pursuant to section 50 of the Act. He obtained a vesting order which provides that, following the decision of this Tribunal, the premium payable by the Applicant to the [NAME] for grant of the new lease is to be paid into court and the Applicant is to apply to the District Judge to execute the new lease.

8. The Applicant applied to this Tribunal for determination of the terms of the new lease, pursuant to section 51 of the Act. With his application the Applicant lodged a valuation report prepared for him Mr [APPELLANT]. [APPELLANT] dated 12 June 2018.

9. The Tribunal has made a paper determination as to the terms of the new lease. The Tribunal considered the valuation of the Property and the assumptions and calculations made by Mr. [NAME]. The Tribunal determines that the valuation of the lease extension premium reflecting market evidence provided is £6980 as per the attached valuation.

10. [NAME] is entitled to compensation for loss of the ground rent to 21 December 2075. Mr. [NAME] valued this at £211. However the Tribunal has carried out its own valuation as follows:

Rent

£15.00 per annum YP for 57.3 yrs @6.5% 2% (40%) 12.376818 Diminution in Value £186

11. [NAME] is a company owned by each of the 6 leaseholders at [ADDRESS]. Paragraph 22 (a) of the Sixth Schedule to the Lease reads:

"[NAME] shall procure that at all times the Owner for the time being of the Premises [i.e., the flat] holds [NAME]'s share in [NAME] and is registered as a member of [NAME] as holder of that share."

12. At clause 3 of the [NAME] insure and repair the building, maintain the common parts, prepare service charge accounts and to carry out other management responsibilities as set out in Schedule 7 of the Lease. Notwithstanding the creation of a new lease, these responsibilities have still to be carried out by the leaseholders through their company [COMPANY]. That company is therefore to be joined as a party to the new lease as "the Management Company", and to covenant with the tenant and the [NAME] in the terms of Schedule 7 of the Lease.

13. As a consequence of [NAME]'s re-designation as the Management Company, [NAME]'s obligations contained in the Sixth Schedule to the Lease are to continue as obligations owed to both the [NAME] and the Management Company, and in the new lease clause 2 of the Lease is to be amended accordingly.

4 14. Other terms of the Lease are to remain in effect and, subject to the changes recorded above, the new lease shall take the form of the draft lease attached to this Order.

15. Neither the [NAME] nor [NAME] have incurred costs in this application and therefore no order is made for payment of costs by the Applicant.

Appeal Provisions

16. If any party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply to this Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Any such application must be received within 28 days after these written reasons have been sent to the parties (Rule 52 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013).

[NAME] 26 July 2019

5

📊 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 tenant is entitled to a new lease extending the lease term by 90 years.
  • The tenant is entitled to a new lease at a peppercorn rent.
  • A landlord may be dispensed from consultation requirements if it is reasonable to do so.
  • A landlord can charge a reasonable amount for service charges related to maintaining and repairing communal areas.
  • Urgent safety works allow dispensation from consultation requirements.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • No specific factors listed in the provided cases tend to go against the claimant.

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 is entitled to a new lease extending the lease term by 90 years and subject to a peppercorn rent, with a premium of £6,980 to the a person and £186 to a person.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant seeking a lease extension and two landlords, the a person and a person.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, determining the premium for the lease extension and ordering the terms of the new lease.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the tenant's entitlement to a lease extension under the 1993 Act.

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

The decision was in favour of the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also be entitled to a lease extension under the 1993 Act, with a calculated premium.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation report prepared by a person MRICS was significant in calculating the premium.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

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

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.

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.