Tenant Ordered to Pay Landlord's Reasonable Costs for Lease Extension Application
📌 In brief
In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal ruled that a tenant must pay the landlord's reasonable costs incurred in responding to a lease extension application. The decision was made under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the landlord in responding to a lease extension application.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined that the costs incurred by the landlord in responding to a lease extension application were reasonable and payable.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined that the costs incurred by the landlord in responding to a lease extension application were reasonable and payable under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/OOAK/OC(/2022/0115 Property : 25 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted]
[COMPANY]
Respondent: [redacted] : Application for determination of reasonableness of costs Tribunal Member :
Judge Shepherd
Date of Directions : 20th September 2022
Determination
2
1. This is an application to determine the reasonableness of costs pursuant to section 60 of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (The Act). The applicant is [APPELLANT] (“the Applicant). They are the freeholders of premises at 25 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“The premises”). The Respondent is [RESPONDENT] ( The Respondent) the leaseholder of the premises. The application is dated the 24th of June 2022.
2. The Respondent served notice claiming a new lease on the 24th of October 2017. The Applicant served a counter notice on the 18th of December 2017. Thereafter it appears that there was no further correspondence on the matter and on the 7th of March 2022 the Applicant’s solicitors wrote to the [NAME] saying that they were no longer willing to proceed with the matter due to the lack of response and seeking their costs and serving a completion statement asking for payment within 14 days. The costs including surveyor’s fees, legal fees and disbursements were £2262.90. Thereafter the Applicants made their application to the tribunal and directions were given. It does not appear that the Respondents complied with the directions applying to them and this is therefore an unopposed claim.
The Law
3. Section 60 of the Act states the following:
60.— Costs incurred in connection with new lease to be paid by tenant. (1) Where a notice is given under section 42, then (subject to the provisions of this section) the tenant by whom it is given shall be liable, to the extent that they have been incurred by any [NAME] in pursuance of the notice, for the reasonable costs of and incidental to any of the following matters, namely—
3
(a) any investigation reasonably undertaken of the tenant's right to a new lease; (b) any valuation of the tenant's flat obtained for the purpose of fixing the premium or any other amount payable by virtue of Schedule 13 in connection with the grant of a new lease under section 56; (c) the grant of a new lease under that section; but this subsection shall not apply to any costs if on a sale made voluntarily a stipulation that they were to be borne by the purchaser would be void. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) any costs incurred by a [NAME] in respect of professional services rendered by any person shall only be regarded as reasonable if and to the extent that costs in respect of such services might reasonably be expected to have been incurred by him if the circumstances had been such that he was personally liable for all such costs. (3) Where by virtue of any provision of this Chapter the tenant's notice ceases to have effect, or is deemed to have been withdrawn, at any time, then (subject to subsection (4)) the tenant's liability under this section for costs incurred by any person shall be a liability for costs incurred by him down to that time. (4) A tenant shall not be liable for any costs under this section if the tenant's notice ceases to have effect by virtue of section 47(1) or 55(2). (5) A tenant shall not be liable under this section for any costs which a party to any proceedings under this Chapter before [the appropriate tribunal]1 incurs in connection with the proceedings. (6) In this section “[NAME]” , in relation to a claim by a tenant under this Chapter, means the landlord for the purposes of this Chapter, any other landlord (as defined by section 40(4)) or any third party to the tenant's lease.
Determination
4
4. The application is effectively unopposed and the Tribunal have been provided with limited information however on the basis of the information given the costs incurred by the Applicant in responding to the application for a lease extension appear entirely reasonable and payable.
Judge Shepherd
20th September 2022
ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL Appealing against the tribunal’s decisions
1. A written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional tribunal office which has been dealing with the case.
2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional tribunal office within 28 days after the date this decision is sent to the parties.
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 state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. All applications for permission to appeal will be considered on the papers 5. Any application to stay the effect of the decision must be made at the same time as the application for permission to appeal.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Reasonable Costs Determination for New Lease Application
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Entitled to Recover Costs Incurred in Lease Extension Claim
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Entitled to Reasonable Costs Under 1993 Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Decides on Reasonable Costs for Lease Extensions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Reasonableness of Costs in Lease Extension Process
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Tenant Costs for Lease Extension
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Determines Reasonable Costs for Tenant's Lease Extension
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Entitled to Recover Reasonable Costs Under Leasehold Reform Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Decides Reasonable Costs for Tenant's Lease Extension
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 reasonable costs under section 60(1) of the 1993 Act.
- The costs incurred by the landlord are considered reasonable if they could reasonably be expected to occur.
- The tenant is entitled to pay reasonable costs incurred by the landlord in connection with a lease extension application.
- The tenant is entitled to recover reasonable costs incurred in responding to a lease extension claim under the 1993 Act.
- The tenant is entitled to reasonable costs for obtaining a new lease under the 1993 Act.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claim was dismissed when the tenant attempted to recover costs resulting from a defective notice.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision determined that the costs incurred by the landlord in responding to a lease extension application were reasonable and payable.
Who was involved?
The case involved a landlord and a tenant.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord's costs were reasonable and payable because they were incurred in response to a lease extension application under the 1993 Act.
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 costs incurred by the landlord were reasonable and should be paid by the tenant.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should expect to pay reasonable costs if they initiate a lease extension application.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the costs incurred by the landlord, including surveyor's fees, legal fees, and disbursements.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving lease extensions and cost recovery.
