VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Successfully Acquires Freehold Interest Through Valid Notice

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant successfully acquired the freehold interest in their property after serving a valid notice under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The First-tier Tribunal confirmed the price payable for the freehold interest at £1400, including the landlord's costs.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to acquire the freehold interest in their property if they serve a valid notice under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Topics

tenancyleasehold reformfreehold acquisition

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Act 1967

📖 Technical summary

The claimant successfully acquired the freehold interest in their property after serving a valid notice under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant, a tenant, sought to acquire the freehold interest in their property after serving a valid notice under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The Tribunal confirmed the price payable for the freehold interest at £1400, including the respondent's costs. The decision was made on 21 July 2020 by A M Davies, LLB, and S Kendall, MRICS, in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00CG/OAF/2019/0031

Property : 7 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] : Section 21, Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Tribunal Members : [NAME]

S [NAME], MRICS

Date of Decision : 21 July 2020

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

2

DECISION

1. The sum to be paid by the Applicants for the freehold interest in [ADDRESS], Sheffield is £1400 including the Respondent’s costs.

2. The transfer of the freehold interest is to include the following provision: that the boundary structures separating the property from adjoining residential property are mesne or party structures and shall be maintained at joint expense accordingly.

REASONS

1. On 25 June 2019 the Applicants sent a notice to the Respondent claiming the right to acquire the freehold of [ADDRESS], Sheffield (“the Property”). The notice was served pursuant to part 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“the Act”), and was substantially in the form required by the Act. The Respondent denies that the notice was valid because, although signed, it was not dated. However it was accompanied by a dated letter from the Applicants, and was sent by recorded delivery post and signed for. The Tribunal finds that the notice was validly served.

2. The Applicants are leaseholders of the Property who qualify for the right to enfranchise. They valued the freehold interest at £450 and offered to pay £1000 for it, including the Respondent’s costs. The Respondent valued the freehold interest at £700.

3. The parties were unable to come to an agreement as to the amount payable to the Respondent. On 19 November 2019 the Applicants applied to the Tribunal for a determination (a) under section 21(1)(a) of the Act as to the amount payable for the freehold and (b) under section 21(2)(a) of the Act as to the provisions to be included in the transfer.

4. The Respondent has supplied a valuation schedule prepared by [RESPONDENT]. The Tribunal agrees with the figures in the schedule and confirms the price payable for the freehold interest at £700.

5. The Respondent has not provided any details of its costs and disbursements. The Tribunal considers that £700 inclusive of VAT is a reasonable amount to allow. The total payable by the Applicants to the Respondent is therefore £1400.

6. The [NAME] for the Property will automatically include the restrictive covenants applicable to the freehold estate, which are currently set out in the Applicant’s leasehold title (title number SYK330839). These provide that the Property is to be used only as a residence, that no alcohol is to be supplied there, and that the owners are not to use the Property in any manner that would be offensive to adjoining occupiers. The [NAME] does not make any provision for joint ownership of boundary structures, but such a provision does appear in the Applicants’ lease. That provision should therefore be included in the transfer to the Applicants.

Tribunal Judge AM Davies 28 July 2020

📊 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' notice to acquire the freehold was validly served, despite not being dated, because it was accompanied by a dated letter and sent by recorded delivery.
  • The tenants qualify for the right to acquire the freehold interest in their property.
  • A reasonable amount for the respondent's costs and disbursements, including VAT, is £700.
  • The transfer of the freehold should include a provision for joint maintenance of boundary structures, as this was in the original lease.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The respondent's argument that the notice was invalid because it was not dated was rejected.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The claimant successfully acquired the freehold interest in their property after serving a valid notice under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Who was involved?

The claimant, a tenant, and the respondent, a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the notice served by the claimant was valid, leading to the acquisition of the freehold interest.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The validity of the notice served by the claimant was the central argument.

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

The decision was for the claimant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can also acquire the freehold interest in their property if they serve a valid notice under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The notice served by the claimant and the valuation schedule provided by the respondent mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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.