VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Granted Right to New Lease Under 1993 Act

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted a tenant the right to extend their lease of a flat in Bromley, Kent, with a premium of £26,000. The decision was based on a valuation report and the provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to acquire a new lease of their flat under the provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

Topics

lease extensionvaluationpremium calculation

Provisions

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the premium for extending the lease of a flat.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined that the tenant was entitled to extend their lease of a flat in Bromley, Kent, with a premium of £26,000. The decision was based on a valuation report and the provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

Case Reference

: LON/00AF/OLR/2018/0669

Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] : [COUNSEL], Solicitors

Respondent: [redacted] : None

Type of Application : Enfranchisement

Tribunal Members:

Judge Robert Latham

Mrs [NAME]

Date and venue of : Paper determination on 9 July 2018 at Hearing

: [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of Decision : 12 July 2018

________________________________

DECISION ________________________

(i) The Tribunal determines that the premium payable by the Applicant for an extension of his lease of [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is £26,000.

(ii) The Tribunal approves proposed draft of the deed of surrender and re- grant.

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

Background

1. The Applicant is claiming the right to acquire a new lease of his flat, namely [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (“the flat”) pursuant to the provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 ("the Act"). On 23 March 2018, District Judge Lightman, sitting at the Central London County Court, upon being satisfied that the [RESPONDENT] could not be found, made a vesting order under section 50(1) of the Act. He transferred the matter to this Tribunal to determine the terms of the new lease and the premium payable.

Evidence

2. We have been provided with a valuation report by [NAME], dated 4 April 2018. He computes the premium to be £26,000. He inspected the property on 18 July 2016.

3. We have also been provided with a draft deed of surrender and re-grant.

Lease details

4. The Applicant currently holds the flat under a lease, dated 31 March 1983, for a term of 99 years from 1 January 1982. The Valuation Date is 21 July 2017 when the unexpired term was 63.45 years. The flat consists of two bedrooms, a reception room, a kitchen and bathroom, on the ground floor of a converted three-storey semi-detached house. There are no relevant tenant’s improvements.

Long Lease Value

5. Mr [APPELLANT] has regard to three comparables: (i) 9 Fresham House; (ii) First and Second Floor Flat, [ADDRESS]; and (iii) First Floor flat, [ADDRESS]. We are satisfied with the adjustments which he has made to the comparables. We approve his assessment of the existing lease value of £316,800 and the 1% uplift to determine a freehold value of £320,000.

Relativity

6. Mr [NAME] has taken a figure of 87.4%, namely the average of the five RICS’s graphs for Greater London and the rest of England. In the absence of any evidence of local transactions, we are satisfied that this approach is justified. Other valuer’s might suggest that other graphs should be considered. However, we are content to determine relativity on the evidence before us.

Capitalisation Rate

7. [NAME] takes a figure of 6.5%. We approve this.

3

Deferment Rate

8. We approve the “Sportelli” rate of 5% for deferment which Mr [NAME] has adopted.

Calculation of the Premium

9. We have checked Mr [NAME] calculation and approve his assessment of the premium in the sum of £26,000. [NAME]’ valuation is at p.45 of the Bundle.

Judge Robert Latham 12 July 2018

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

3. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4. The application 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 making the application is seeking.

📊 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 acquire a new lease under the 1993 Act.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent repayment order if the landlord breaches the law.
  • The Tribunal can approve terms of a transfer deed following a vesting order.
  • The local authority must provide evidence of serious hazards for a Prohibition Order.
  • A tenant is entitled to a fair rent reflecting market conditions and property characteristics.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • A tenant cannot refer a rent increase notice after the proposed effective date.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tenant was entitled to extend their lease of a flat with a premium of £26,000.

Who was involved?

The tenant and a missing landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on a valuation report and the provisions of the 1993 Act.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The valuation report provided by a professional valuer.

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

For the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may be able to extend their lease under the same act.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation report and the provisions of the 1993 Act.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, but only if permission is granted by the First-tier Tribunal.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor.

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.