VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Freehold Purchase Price at £2,283

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant applied to buy their freehold interest but could not find the landlord. The tribunal agreed and set a purchase price of £2,283 based on a valuation report.

⚖️ Legal holding

A qualifying tenant is entitled to purchase a reversionary freehold interest where the landlord cannot be found, as per sections 21 and 27 of the 1967 Act.

Topics

Leasehold reformFreehold acquisition

Provisions

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.21(1)Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.27(5)

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal determined the price for purchasing the freehold interest under section 21(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tribunal determined that a qualifying tenant can purchase the freehold interest of their property under sections 21 and 27 of the Leasehold Reform Act when the landlord cannot be found, setting the price at £2,283.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2014

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :

BIR/00CR/OAF/2026/0003

Property : 3 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] : [APPELLANT] (Reference DF/B10693-0001)

Respondent: [redacted] : Not applicable (missing landlord) Type of application : Application under sections 21(1) and 27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“the 1967 Act”) Tribunal members : [NAME] [NAME] : Remote Date of paper determination :

20 February 2026

DECISION

Decision of the Tribunal (1) The tribunal determines that the price to be paid by the applicant for the purchase of the freehold on statutory terms is £2,283.

2

The Background 1. This is an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the 1967 Act pursuant to an order made by District Judge Newham-Payne sitting at the County Court at Dudley on 17 November 2025 (“the order”).

2. Sections 21(1) and 27(5) of the 1967 Act concerns claims for the purchase of the reversionary freehold interest 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 27(5)(a) of the 1967 Act, the role of the tribunal is to determine the appropriate sum to be paid into court in respect of the landlord’s interests. This to be done in accordance with section 9 of the 1967 Act.

4. The applicant in this matter is [NAME] [APPELLANT]. He is the qualifying tenant of 3 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the Property”) with a long tenancy within the meaning of section 3(1) of the 1967 Act. The respondent freehold owners are the successors in title to Mr [NAME] and Mrs [NAME].

5. On 7 October 2025 the applicants issued a Part 8 Claim at Dudley County Court for an order pursuant to section 21(1) of the 1967 Act seeking the freehold of the Property. The Statement of Case at page 93 of the bundle claims this Part 8 application was made to the Court on 30 September 2025.

6. The applicant has been unable to ascertain the whereabouts of the respondents. The applicant subsequently applied for a vesting order under section 27(1) of the 1967 Act. The vesting order was granted subject to the determination of this tribunal.

7. The applicant has provided the tribunal with a valuation report prepared by Mr [NAME] [NAME], a Consultant Chartered Surveyor acting on behalf of [COMPANY] dated 20 November 2025.

8. Mr [NAME] is of the view that the premium to be paid for the freehold is £2,100 as at the valuation date adopted of 30 September 2025, the date the Part 8 claim was submitted.

3

The Determination 9. After scrutiny the tribunal accepts the opinions expressed by Mr [NAME] in his valuation report dated 20 November 2025 save that: (i) The Expert has allocated 33% of the Entirety Value to the site value. The tribunal has reviewed the site size, shape and location of the property. It has had regard for the plot the terraced property occupies which is long and narrow with an access to front and rear. The dwelling dominates the plot. The Upper Tribunal decision, [NAME] [NAME] v Liverpool City Council (LRA/78/2015) provides guidance on the matters to consider in determination of the appropriate percentage of the entirety value attributable to the site. In accordance with the guidance and previous Upper Tribunal decisions this tribunal has deemed 35% of the Entirety Value should be adopted as the apportioned site value in this valuation.

(ii) The tribunal has calculated the reversion to be slightly longer than that advised by the Expert and the tribunal has adopted 66.8 years as remaining on the lease.

10. An adjusted calculation that adopts the revised parameter listed above at (i)–(ii) results in a freehold purchase premium of £2,283. A copy of the tribunal’s valuation is attached to this decision.

11.

Accordingly, the tribunal determines that the premium to be paid in respect of the purchase of the freehold of the property is £2,283.

12. This matter should now be returned to the County Court sitting at Dudley under Claim Number MOODD 552 in order for the final procedures to take place.

[NAME]

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 (ie, 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.

📊 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 tenant was entitled to purchase the freehold interest because the landlord could not be found.
  • The tribunal accepted the expert's valuation report as a basis for determining the freehold premium.
  • The tribunal determined the freehold purchase premium to be £2,283.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The expert's allocation of 33% of the property's value to the site was rejected.
  • The expert's calculation of the remaining lease term was not accepted.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal determined that the qualifying tenant can purchase the freehold interest for £2,283.

Who was involved?

A qualifying tenant and persons unknown as the landlord could not be found.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court reviewed a valuation report and adjusted it based on site value and lease length to determine the purchase price.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 21(1) and 27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The valuation report provided by a chartered surveyor, adjusted for site value and lease length.

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

For the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

A tenant can purchase their freehold interest if they cannot find the landlord, but must follow legal procedures and obtain a valuation report.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The valuation report by a chartered surveyor was crucial to determining the price.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an appeal can be made within 28 days of receiving the written reasons for the decision.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.