Tenant Loses Right to New Lease After Assigning Interest
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a tenant lost their right to a new lease after they assigned their leasehold interest to another company without also transferring the benefit of the Notice of Claim.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant loses the right to a new lease upon assigning their leasehold interest without transferring the benefit of the Notice of Claim.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's a person for a new lease was dismissed due to the assignment of his leasehold interest.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the tenant's application for a new lease of their flat, ruling that the tenant no longer had a statutory right to a new lease after assigning their leasehold interest without transferring the benefit of the Notice of Claim.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
Case Reference
: KA/LON/OOAK/ORL/2019/0342
Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted] : [COUNSEL] [NAME] [APPELLANT] Solicitors
Respondent: [redacted] : [NAME] (Solicitors)
Type of [NAME] : Enfranchisement
Tribunal Members:
Judge [NAME] and venue of : Paper determination on 25 June 2019 at Hearing
: [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Date of Decision : 25 June 2019
________________________________
DECISION ________________________
The [NAME] is dismissed as the applicant no longer has a statutory right to a new lease.
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Reasons for Decision
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").
2. On 18 July 2018, the applicant served their tenant’s Notice of Claim to exercise his right to acquire his new lease pursuant to section 42 of the Act. On 13 September 2018, the respondent served its Counter-notice.
3. On 14 March 2019, the applicant issued his [NAME] to this Tribunal pursuant to section 48(1) of the Act. On 22 March, the respondent wrote to the tribunal contending that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction as the [NAME] had been issued out of time. On 20 May, the Tribunal notified the parties that this would be determined as a preliminary hearing on 25 June.
4. On 28 May, the Tribunal raised a new issue. On 2 May 2019, the applicant had served a further section 42 Notice. On 3 May 2019, the applicant assigned its leasehold interest to [APPELLANT]. On 10 May 2019, this assignment was registered with the Land Registry. The applicant assigned the Notice of Claim dated, 2 May 2019, but not the original Notice of Claim, dated 18 July 2018. The respondent contended that as there was no assignment of the original Notice of Claim, this notice was withdrawn. Alternatively, there was a deemed withdrawal.
5. On 4 June, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant directing him to provide his comments on the respondent’s letter by 10 June. The parties were notified that if there remained a dispute as to whether there was a valid [NAME], this would be determined on 25 June. The applicant failed to respond.
6. In a letter received by the Tribunal on 14 June, the respondent stated that it no longer contends that this [NAME] was made out of time. However, it asks the Tribunal to dismiss the [NAME] on the ground that the applicant has assigned his interest and no longer has a right to a new lease.
7. On 19 June, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file and serve his defence to the letter dated 28 May by no later than 24 June. The applicant has failed to respond.
8. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant assigned his leasehold interest in the flat on 3 May 2019. He did not assign the benefit of the Notice of Claim, dated 18 July 2019. He currently has no right to a new lease. The Tribunal therefore dismisses his [NAME].
Judge Robert Latham 25 June 2019
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. 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 Regional office which has been dealing with the case.
2. 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].
3. 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.
4. 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.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Ordered to Repay Rent for Unlicensed HMO Operation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant Successfully Obtains Right to Manage Premises
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Lease Extension Premium Set at £32,300 - First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Emergency Repairs Can Bypass Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Works Dispensation Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Four-Bedroom Property Under Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freehold Valuation Determined by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Freeholder to Vary Leases for Sinking Fund and I…
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 claimant meets the statutory requirements to exercise the right to manage premises.
- The landlord's notice of rent increase does not comply with the legal requirements.
- The landlord operates an HMO without a license, and the offense is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- The works are necessary and urgent, allowing the landlord to obtain dispensation from consultation requirements.
- The tenant is entitled to have their rent assessed based on the property's condition and market comparables.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant loses the right to a new lease upon assigning their leasehold interest without transferring the benefit of the Notice of Claim.
- The claimant's request for a rent determination lacks similar assured tenancies in the locality and does not show the rent is significantly higher than reasonable expectations.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision dismissed the tenant's application for a new lease.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant no longer had a statutory right to a new lease because they assigned their leasehold interest without transferring the benefit of the Notice of Claim.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 sections 42 and 48 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant had assigned their leasehold interest without transferring the benefit of the Notice of Claim.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that they transfer the benefit of the Notice of Claim along with their leasehold interest if they wish to retain their right to a new lease.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The Notice of Claim and the assignment of the leasehold interest were key documents.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving leasehold rights.
