Tenant's Cost Determination Under Leasehold Reform Act
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided that the tenant should pay £800 for costs related to obtaining a new lease, including VAT and disbursements. The decision was based on the Leasehold Reform Act 1993.
⚖️ Legal holding
a person is entitled to have reasonable costs determined by the tribunal under the Act.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal determined the reasonable costs to be paid by the tenant under the Act.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal determined that the reasonable costs to be paid by the tenant under the Leasehold Reform Act 1993 are £800 inclusive of VAT and disbursements.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BJ/OC9/2019/0067 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] [NAME] [APPELLANT] : [APPELLANT] Respondent: [redacted] : [NAME] of [NAME] : An [NAME] under section 91(2)(d) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 for a determination aa to costs to be paid under s60 (1) of the Act Tribunal members :
Tribunal Judge Dutton
Date of determination and venue : 21st May 2019 at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
DECISION
Background 1. This is an [NAME] made by the applicant leaseholder pursuant to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the Act”) for a determination of the reasonable costs to be paid under the
2 provisions of sections 91(2)(d) and 60(1) of the Act in respect of 2 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (the “property”).
2. The [NAME] is dated 18th March 2019 and directions were issued on 27th March 2019.
3. By a letter dated 10th April 2019 the [NAME], [RESPONDENT], indicated that “the respondent did not wish to make any submissions in response to the applicants [NAME] for the determination of costs..” 4. The applicants relied upon a witness statement made by [COUNSEL] a solicitor with [COMPANY] This statement, containing a statement of truth, is dated 25th April 2019. I have noted all that is said therein.
5. The provisions of s60 of the Act are set out below and have been borne in mind by me in reaching this decision The tribunal’s determination 6. The tribunal determines that the costs payable under the provisions of s60(1) of the Act are £800 inclusive of VAT and disbursements . Reasons for the tribunal’s determination 7. I have considered all that has been said by Ms [RESPONDENT]. The respondent appears to have had two bites at the costs cherry, both under the Act and in respect of the freehold purchase and lease extension, which the parties appeared to have agreed, with completion set for 25th February 2019. The costs for the agreed terms were set at £1,476.00 inclusive and appear on a completion statement exhibited to the statement of Ms [RESPONDENT]. The respondent sought to charge a further sum of £1,812.00 inclusive under the provisions of s60(1) of the Act. It is this element that is disputed by the applicants.
8. The respondent, as stated above, makes no submissions on the statutory costs.
9. I see no need to repeat all that is said in Ms [NAME] statement. It is not challenged. The statement sets out the basis upon which a figure of £800 inclusive is put forward, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
10.
Accordingly, I find that the costs payable under the provisions of the Act (s91(2)(d) and 60(1)) are £800.00 inclusive of VAT and any disbursements
3
Name: Tribunal Judge Dutton Date: 21st May 2019
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 [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. 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]. 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. 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. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). The [NAME] law 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— (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 [NAME] shall only be regarded as reasonable if and to the
4 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 [NAME] shall be a liability for costs incurred by him down to that time. (4) [NAME] 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) [NAME] shall not be liable under this section for any costs which a party to any proceedings under this Chapter before a leasehold valuation tribunal incurs in connection with the proceedings. (6) In this section “[NAME]”, in relation to a claim by [NAME] 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.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Entitled to Recover Reasonable Costs Under Leasehold Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Reasonable Costs for Tenant's Lease Extensio…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Orders Tenant to Pay £3,240 for New Lease Costs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Ground Rent Collection Fees Not Payable By Tenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Rent Repayment Order Against Landlord for Unlicensed HMO
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Lift Repairs Dispensation Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Lease Premium Under the 1993 Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Lift Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds Most Service Charges as Reasonable
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Guttering Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Costs Assessment Under Leasehold Reform Act 1993
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 have reasonable costs determined by the tribunal under the Act.
- Service charges are payable if they are reasonably incurred and of a reasonable standard.
- A landlord may be dispensed with the requirement to consult leaseholders about major works if the works are urgent and there are no objections from the leaseholders.
- Ground rent collection fees are not payable by tenants if they are not contractually recoverable as administration charges under the lease.
- A tenant is entitled to recover reasonable costs incurred in connection with a new lease under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal decided that the tenant should pay £800 for costs related to obtaining a new lease.
Who was involved?
The tenant requested a determination of costs, while the landlord did not submit any arguments.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the evidence provided by the tenant's solicitor, considering the reasonable costs under the Act.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, specifically section 60.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The tenant's solicitor argued that the costs should be £800, which seemed reasonable to the tribunal.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant, as the costs were lower than what the landlord had requested.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should consider the reasonable costs when requesting a cost determination under the Act.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The tenant's solicitor provided a statement detailing the reasonable costs.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving cost determinations under the Act.
