VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Ordered to Pay Landlord's Costs After Deemed Withdrawal

Case No.

📌 In brief

In a recent First-tier Tribunal case, a tenant was ordered to pay their landlord's costs after a notice under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993 was deemed withdrawn. The tenant had to pay £1,826.50 within 14 days.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant must reimburse a landlord's costs if a notice under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993 is deemed withdrawn.

Topics

leasehold reformcostsdeemed withdrawal

Provisions

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the claimant's costs following the deemed withdrawal of a notice under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord's costs in the amount of £1,826.50 following the deemed withdrawal of a notice under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/LON/00BC/OC9/2022/0049 Property : 43C [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] (Kensington) Limited Representative : PDC Law Respondent: [redacted] as executors of the late [NAME] [RESPONDENT] : N/A Type of application : Costs pursuant to section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Tribunal members : Judge [NAME] of determination and venue : 26 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (paper) Date of decision : 26 May 2022

DECISION

2 Summary of the tribunal’s decision (1) The respondents are liable to pay the applicant’s costs in the sum of £1,826.50 within 14 days from the date of this decision. _________________________________________________ Background 1. This is an application made by the applicant freeholder pursuant to section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the Act”). The applicant seeks the tribunal’s determination of the reasonable costs payable as a consequence of the deemed withdrawal of a s.42 Notice of Claim dated 25 November 2019, seeking the grant of a new lease of the subject property. A s.45 Counter-Notice dated 28 January 2020 was served in response.

2. In an email dated 30 November 2020 the applicant informed the respondents that the Notice of Claim was deemed withdrawn pursuant to s.43(3) of the Act. Consequently, the respondents were informed that the applicants were liable for the legal and valuation costs which the landlord has incurred in the sum of £1,726.50 comprising: (i) Surveyors fee inc. VAT……………£750.00 (ii) Legal fees inc. VAT…………………£945.00 (iii) Disbursements……………………….£31.50 3. The applicant also sought reimbursement of the application fee of £100.

4. In support of the application, the applicant provided the tribunal with copies of the invoices from the surveyor and a breakdown of the legal costs.

5. The respondents did not provide any response to the application despite being contacted by the tribunal encouraging them to do so, Despite having subsequently been informed by the tribunal they would be debarred from playing any further role in this application no contact was made by the respondents. The tribunal’s determination 6. The tribunal determines that the costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the respondents’ claim to a new lease are reasonable in amount and proportionate to the work that was required by a surveyor

3 and its legal advisors. Therefore, the tribunal determines that the sum of £1,726.50 is payable by the respondents to the applicant.

7. Further, the applicant seeks a reimbursement of the cost of making this application in the sum of £100. The tribunal also finds it reasonable for the respondents to reimburse the application fee.

8. In conclusion, the tribunal determines the respondents are liable to pay the sum of £1,826.50 as the costs incurred by the applicant. The tribunal determines that such sum should be paid within 14 days of the date of this decision.

Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 26 May 2022

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 application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. 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. 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. 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. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 tenants were liable for the landlord's costs because their claim for a new lease was deemed withdrawn.
  • The tribunal found the landlord's incurred costs for surveyor and legal fees to be reasonable and proportionate.
  • The tribunal found it reasonable for the tenants to reimburse the application fee.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tenant was ordered to pay the landlord's costs of £1,826.50.

Who was involved?

The case involved a landlord and a tenant.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the tenant must pay the landlord's costs because the notice under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993 was deemed withdrawn.

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 that the notice was deemed withdrawn under the Act.

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

The decision was against the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should expect to pay the landlord's costs if a notice is deemed withdrawn.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The invoices from the surveyor and a breakdown of the legal costs were important.

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 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.