Tribunal Sets Freehold Purchase Price at £37,988
📌 In brief
A tribunal decided that a tenant can buy the freehold of their property for £37,988 when they cannot find the landlord. This decision helps tenants who want to own the full rights to their home but face difficulties in locating the owner.
⚖️ Legal holding
A qualifying tenant is entitled to purchase the reversionary freehold interest where the landlord cannot be found, subject to determining an appropriate sum to be paid into court.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal determined the purchase price for the freehold of a property under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tribunal determined that the price to be paid by a qualifying tenant for purchasing the freehold of their property under sections 21(2) and 27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 is £37,988. The landlord could not be found.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2014
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :
BIR/00CN/OAF/2023/0011 Property : 136 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] :
[APPELLANT]
Respondent: [redacted] : Not applicable (missing landlord) Type of application : Application under sections 21(2) and 27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“the 1967 Act”) Tribunal members : [NAME] FRICS Venue : Remote Date of paper determination :
16 October 2023
DECISION
Decisions 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 £37,988.
2 The Background 1. This is an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the 1967 Act pursuant to an order made by Deputy District Judge Lockrayne sitting at the County Court at Birmingham on 26 June 2023 (“the order”).
2. Sections 21(2) 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.
4. The applicant in this matter is [APPELLANT]. He is the qualifying tenant of 136 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (“the Property”) with a long tenancy within the meaning of section 3(1) of the 1967 Act. The respondent freehold owners are [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT].
5. On 23 March 2023, the applicant made a Part 8 Claim at Birmingham County Court for an order pursuant to section 21(1) of the 1967 Act seeking the freehold of the Property. It is noted that the Application at Page 2 of the bundle is date stamped 23rd March 2023. The issue date is shown as 24 April 2023.
6. The applicant has been unable to ascertain the whereabouts of the respondent. 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 Adcocks Solicitors dated 7 July 2023.
8. Mr [NAME] is of the view that the premium to be paid for the freehold is £31,500 as at the valuation date of 23rd March 2023. The Determination 9. After careful scrutiny the tribunal accepts the opinions expressed by Mr [NAME] in his valuation report dated 7 July 2023 save that: (i) The tribunal has adopted a Standing House Value in vacant possession of £140,000. The Expert provides no cogent evidence to support his assertion that the
3 cost of carrying out necessary repairs to the property amount to £60,000 and the value of the dwelling in current condition is £105,000. The tribunal has reviewed the photographic evidence and based upon their knowledge and experience determined reduced detriment caused to the property value by the current disrepair. It is the tribunal opinion that the diminution in value caused to the Standing House Value by the defects shown in the submitted photographs amounts to £20,000.
(ii) The tribunal adopt a lower capitalisation rate of 6.5% for the current rent passing than proposed by the Expert. This is in accordance with the guidance offered in the decision [NAME] and others v Goff 2007 EGLR 83.
(iii) The Applicants Expert has allocated 30% of the Entirety Value to the site value. The tribunal has reviewed the site size and shape and deemed a higher apportionment of 35% of value should be adopted.
10. An adjusted calculation that adopts the revised parameters listed in (i)- (iii) results in a freehold purchase premium of £37,988. 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 £37,988.
12. This matter should now be returned to the County Court sitting at Birmingham under Claim Number K00BM664 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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Granted Right to Buy Freehold Interest Under Leasehold Reform Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Granted Permission to Purchase Freehold Interest Under Leasehold Ref…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Freehold Purchase Price at £2,180
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Purchase Price When Landlord Untraceable
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Designates Management Company as Principal Accountable …
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Lease Breaches
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Works Exemption
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Allowed to Skip Consultation for Urgent Cladding Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs
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 purchase the reversionary freehold interest where the landlord cannot be found.
- Urgent works that pose significant safety risks can be exempted from consultation requirements.
- It is reasonable to dispense with consultation requirements if the works are urgent and necessary to address a significant safety issue.
- A tenant is entitled to a Rent Repayment Order if their landlord operated an unlicensed HMO.
- A tenant must maintain the leased property according to the terms of the lease.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A tenant is not entitled to challenge a defective notice of rent increase under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal set a price of £37,988 for a tenant to buy the freehold of their property.
Who was involved?
A qualifying tenant and missing landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court reviewed evidence including a valuation report and decided on a fair price based on the current condition of the property.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 21(2) and 27(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 were used to determine the purchase price.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The valuation report provided by an expert surveyor was crucial in determining the fair market value of the property.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant, setting a price they can pay to purchase the freehold.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be able to buy their property's freehold if they cannot find the landlord and follow the legal process.
What evidence or documents mattered?
A valuation report prepared by an expert surveyor was important in setting the purchase price.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can often be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.
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.
