Tenant Wins Lease Extension Despite Missing Landlord

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AQ/OLR/2024/0698 Property : 197b [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted]

[NAME] (as executor of the estate of [COUNSEL])

Representative : [COUNSEL] [RESPONDENT] Respondent : [redacted] : Not applicable – missing landlord Type of application : Application under sections 50 and 51 of the Leasehold Reform Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 Tribunal members : [NAME] [NAME] Valuer Venue : Remote Date of paper determination : 21 January 2025

DECISION

Decisions of the Tribunal (1) The Tribunal determines the price to be paid by the applicant for the lease extension is £42,130. (2) The terms of the draft lease are provided for in paragraph 14 below.

2 The background 1. This is an application under Section 50 of the Leasehold Reform Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 ('the 1993 Act') pursuant to an order issued at the County Court at Central London on 15 August 2022 by Deputy District Judge Wood.

2. Section 50 of the 1993 Act concerns claims for lease extension where the relevant landlord cannot be found. It enables the court to make a vesting order in respect of any interests of the landlord which are liable to acquisition.

3. Under Section 50 of the Act, the rôle of the tribunal is to determine the appropriate sum to be paid into Court in respect of the landlord's interests and to approve the form and terms of the proposed new lease.

4. The applicant in this matter is [APPELLANT] who acts as the executor of the estate of [NAME] ( the “estate of [NAME]”). Mr [APPELLANT] deceased is the qualifying tenant of the first floor flat namely, 197b [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] ('the Property'). Mr [APPELLANT] is joined as Claimant in this matter in substitution of the estate of [NAME] by the Order of Deputy District Judge Wood made on 15 August 2022. The respondent freeholder is [APPELLANT].

5. On 14 January 2022 the applicant issued a Part 8 Claim at the County Court at Central London for a vesting order under Section 50(1) of the 1993 Act seeking to extend the lease under the term of the Act. The applicants have been unable to ascertain the whereabouts of the respondent and was, therefore, unable to serve a notice on them pursuant to Section 13 of the 1993 Act.

6. The Part 8 Claim was made originally under Claim number JooCL145. This reference was substituted with Claim number J10CL334 by Order of His Honour Judge Johns on 15 July 2022.

7. The applicant has provided the tribunal with a valuation report prepared by Mr [NAME] dated 2 November 2021.

8. Mr [NAME] is of the view the premium payable for the leasehold extension is £42,035.

9. Comparable sales' transaction evidence is provided in the submitted valuation report to support his opinion of freehold value. The extent and condition of the original demise is also described.

10. The tribunal has relied upon their knowledge and experience of the property market in the Harrow area in making this determination. They have also had regard for recent and relevant Upper Tribunal decisions. The determination 11. The tribunal accepts the opinions expressed by Mr [NAME] in his valuation report dated 2 November 2021, save that:

3 (i) The tribunal adopts a valuation date of 14 January 2022 which is the date the Part 8 Claim was submitted to the County Court at Central London. The Expert adopts the valuation date of 2 November 2021. The change to the valuation date reduces the unexpired term to 53.71 years. This revised length of reversion is applied in the tribunal valuation. (ii) The tribunal has researched the change in flat prices from August 2021 to the valuation date in January 2022 by reference to the Lands Registry house price indices for that period in Harrow. They conclude no significant change in flat prices occurred during that period. They accordingly adopt the extended lease value of the property of £258,624 given by the Expert as of November 2021 in the tribunal valuation. (iii) The tribunal are unable to accept all the works to the property since the grant of lease in September 1977 constitute modernisation and improvements. The tribunal contend a proportion of those works such as the installation of the double glazing and replacement of the bathroom fittings constitute reasonable repair and maintenance of the dwelling. The tribunal do accept the value adjustments made to the comparable sale prices to reflect the property condition by the Expert are conservative and thereby not significant material matters in determination of the premium.

12. An adjusted calculation that adopts the revised parameters listed in (i)-(iii) results in a freehold purchase premium of £42,130. A copy of the tribunal’s valuation is attached to this decision.

13.

Accordingly, the tribunal determines that the premium to be paid in respect of the grant of a new leasehold for the property on statutory terms is £42,130 less the summarily agreed costs of £6,000.

14. The tribunal also approves the draft proposed lease and surrender included in the bundle at pp.120 -128 subject to: - the inclusion at Demise clause 1 of the proposed new lease “in consideration of the sum £42,130 less summarily agreed costs of £6,000” as the premium payable; and - that a new lease plan is prepared which is drawn to scale and complies in full with the current HMLR plan requirements. The current lease plan is wholly inadequate to identify the property.

15. This matter should now be returned to the County Court sitting at Central London under claim number J10CL334 for the final procedures to take place. Valuer Chairman: [NAME]: 21 January 2025

4

Appendix A : Premium Valuation

5

RIGHTS OF APPEAL 1. 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.

2. 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.

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 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.