VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Ordered to Pay Landlord's Costs After Failing to Complete New Lease Process

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the tenant was ordered to pay the landlord's reasonable costs after the tenant failed to complete the process for obtaining a new lease. The decision was made by the First-tier Tribunal under the 1993 Act.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is liable for the landlord's reasonable costs of and incidental to the investigation of the tenant's right to a new lease where the tenant's claim is deemed withdrawn.

Topics

tenancy lawcosts recovery

Provisions

section 60 of the 1993 Act

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord's reasonable costs associated with the tenant's right to a new lease under the 1993 Act.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord's reasonable costs associated with the tenant's right to a new lease under the 1993 Act after the tenant's claim was deemed withdrawn due to failure to complete the process.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/29UD/OC9/2018/0015

Property

:

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[COUNSEL] [COMPANY]

Respondent: [redacted]

:

Not represented

Type of Application

:

Landlord’s costs leasehold enfranchisement

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Judge Cohen

2 Date of Decision

: 12 March 2019

DECISION

3

Background

1. On 17 August 2016 the Respondent tenant gave notice under section 42 of the 1993 Act for a new lease.

2. On 31 August 2018 the Applicant informed this Tribunal that the terms for a new lease had been agreed but that the Respondent had failed to complete with the result that the claim was deemed withdrawn. The Applicant supplied the Respondent with details of its costs incurred on investigating the claim.

3. The Applicant received no response from the Respondent in respect of its costs. The Applicant now seeks a determination from the Tribunal on its recoverable statutory costs under section 60 of the 1993 Act.

4. The Tribunal issued directions to progress the application. The Tribunal directed the application to be determined on the papers and required the Respondent to submit its points of dispute to the Applicant’s claim of costs by 6 November 2018.

5. The Respondent did not submit points of dispute.

Decision

6. The Applicant claimed legal fees of £1,971.50 plus £394.30 VAT and disbursements of £6.00 making a total of £2,371.80.

7. The Applicant substantiated its claim by providing a schedule of the statutory legal costs.

8. The Respondent did not submit points of dispute in accordance with the directions.

9. Under section 60 of the 1993 Act the tenant is liable to pay the landlord’s reasonable costs of and incidental to the investigation of the tenant’s right to a new lease; any valuation of the tenant’s flat for the purpose of fixing the premium; and

4 the grant of a new lease. Where the tenant’s claim for a new lease is deemed withdrawn the tenant is liable for the landlord’s reasonable costs to the date of the withdrawal.

10. The Tribunal has examined the evidence and is satisfied that the costs claimed by the Applicant fell within section 60 except those items commented on it the attached schedule. In consequence, the claim is reduced by £ 110.00 and £ 22.00 VAT.

11. The Tribunal determines that the Respondent is liable to pay the Applicant’s reasonable costs of £1,861.50 plus £372.30VAT and disbursements of £6.00 making a total of £2,239.80.

12. The Applicant paid an application fee of £100 on making its application to the Tribunal for an assessment of its costs. I Order that the Respondent reimburses the Applicant that fee by a payment to be made within 28 days from the date of this Order.

Judge Cohen 12 March 2019

5 RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

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

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

6

SCHEDULE

DISPUTED COSTS

Case Reference: CHI/29UD/OC9/2018/0015 Premises: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ITEM COST (£) APPLICANT’S COMMENTS RESPONDENT’S COMMENTS LEAVE BANK (FOR THE TRIBUNAL) Email in 10.00 From client with S42

Duplicated by next item -disallowed Draft advice email 44.00 Advice/consideration and advice to client on S42

Email out 22.00 Advice emailed.

Email from client 10.00 Response

Email from L/H 10.00 Response

7 Review 2nd S42 served 22.00 Considering revised S42 Notice

Draft reply 66.00 Detailed response

Email out 22.00 Email out

Email reply 10.00 Response

Letter out 22.00 To o/s enc Notices to deduce title & request deposit

Draft Notice 44.00 Drafting notices to deduce title & request deposit

Letter in 10.00 From o/s with details of inspection

Duplicated below - disallowed Letter in 10.00 By fax confirming deposit sent

Duplicated below - disallowed Email out 22.00 To client with inspection details

Email in 10.00 Response

Email in 10.00 Confirming money received

Email in 10.00 Agreeing proposal

Email in 10.00 Response

Duplicated by next item - disallowed Email in 10.00 Response

Drafting notice 44.00 Preparing S45 Notice

Letter out 22.00 Serving S45 Notice

Email out 22.00 Copy S45 Notice

Email in 10.00 Response

Email in 10.00 Enc report/valuation

Telephone call 88.00 Voicemail from [COMPANY], voicemail returned. Call returned back, advised on offer in region of £10,500 would be accepted

Email out 22.00 To [COMPANY] confirming telephone conversation

Telephone call 22.00 Call to o/s confirming £10,500 would

8 be accepted by our client Telephone call 22.00 [COMPANY] confirming conversation with o/s and buyers visiting [COMPANY] to discuss

Drafting 154.00 Preparing draft surrender and regrant

Telephone call 22.00 Call from o/s accepting offer

Letter in 10.00 By fax from o/s confirmation offer accepted

Duplicated by next item -disallowed Email out 22.00 Confirming instructions to accept offer

Email in 10.00 Response

Duplicated by emails out -disallowed Email out 22.00 Response

Email in 10.00 Response

Duplicated by emails out -disallowed Email in 10.00 Response

Email on 10.00 Response

Email out 22.00 Response

Drafting 132.00 Updating draft surrender and regrant

Email out 22.00 Enc draft surrender and regrant

Email in 10.00 Response

Duplicated by emails out -disallowed Telephone call 22.00 [COMPANY], confirming docs are still to be executed by both sides.

Drafting 110.00 Finalising engrossments

Letter out 22.00 To o.s

Email in 10.00 Response

Telephone call 22.00 With o.s confirming engrossments and completion statement to be sent out

Telephone call 22.00 With client to confirm drafting of engrossments

Letter out 22.00 Enc engrossments

Email out 22.00 To o.s confirming valuation report is

9 correct Telephone call 22.00 With o.s discussing surveyors fees

Email out 22.00 Response

Telephone call 22.00 Confirming ground rent/service charges are outstanding

Email in 10.00 Enclosing outstanding fees

Email out 22.00 Response

Drafting 44.00 Updating completion statement

Email out 22.00 Enclosing completion statements

Email in 10.00 Response

Email out 22.00 Response

Drafting 44.00 Amending documents to reflect correct name of tenant

Email in 10.00 Response

Email out 22.00 Chasing from previous emails no response received

Email in 10.00 Client chasing file

Email out 23.00 Response

Email in 10.00 Response

Letter out 23.00 Chasing file

Email in 10.00 Letter from o.s by email

Duplicated by next item –disallowed Drafting 55.00 Drafting letter to client re matter

Email out 55.00 To client

Perusal 27.50 Reviewing file

Letter out 27.50 To o.s.

Perusal 27.50 Review file

Email out 27.50 To client

Email in 10.00 From client

Duplicated by next item-disallowed Email out 27.50 Explaining deadlines

10

TOTAL 1971.50

[NAME] working on file 1. [COUNSEL]. Solicitor. 10 years experience - charge out rate £220 per hour 2. [NAME]. Partner. 30 years call - charge out rate £275.00 per hour

Correspondence received charged at £10.00 per item. Letters out and telephone calls charged at 10% of [NAME] rate in 6 minute units.

We confirm that the amount being sought, does not exceed the amount our client is liable to pay.

Schedule of [NAME] - £220 per hour; all letters out and telephone calls charged at £22.00 each [NAME] - £275 per hour; all letters out, emails and telephone calls out charged at £27.50 each

Signed:

Dated:

Comments by Judge Cohen 11 March 2019

📊 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 landlord is allowed to bypass tenant consultation if the situation involves urgent and necessary actions to ensure safety or prevent damage.
  • The appropriate sums for lease extensions or freehold purchases are determined based on legal acts such as the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
  • Dispensation from consultation requirements is granted if there is no identified prejudice to the tenants.
  • Tenants can extend their lease even if the landlord cannot be traced.
  • The courts recognize the landlord's right to reasonable costs and incidental expenses related to investigating the tenant’s right to a new lease.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • No significant factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided similar cases.

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 reasonable costs associated with the tenant's right to a new lease.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenant were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the tenant should pay the landlord's costs because the tenant's claim for a new lease was deemed withdrawn due to failure to complete the process.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 60 of the 1993 Act was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the tenant's claim was deemed withdrawn due to failure to complete the process.

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 ensure they complete the process for obtaining a new lease to avoid being ordered to pay the landlord's costs.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the details of the costs incurred by the landlord and the fact that the tenant failed to complete the process.

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 get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property law.

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.