Mark Loveday

Summary

Under s.60 of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, a lessee seeking a lease extension is liable to pay the landlord’s reasonable legal and valuation costs. The UTLC in this appeal decided that s.60 costs may properly include solicitor’s costs of (i) drafting a counter-notice under s.45 of the Act, and (ii) instructing a valuer. However, the burden of proving that s.60 costs are reasonable falls on the landlord. In this case there were a number of other actual and potential lease extensions in the same block and the UTLC found that a reasonable landlord would have obtained a 20% discount from its solicitors for handling the ‘bulk’ work on a large number of claims. The Upper Tribunal therefore allowed the landlord to recover both items of costs referred to above, but reduced the total amount of s.60 costs by 20% to reflect a reasonable ‘bulk’ discount.

Summary

The respondent landlord sought service charges from an underlessee of a flat which included a contribution towards a sinking fund maintained by the headlessee. The UTLC determined that not all those costs were reasonably incurred under section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.   

Summary

The claims involved the valuation of premiums under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The UTLC listed three applications for the specific purpose of considering the validity of a hedonic regression model (“the Parthenia model”) to determine leasehold relativity. The Tribunal indicated the approach to be adopted for assessing relativity for different lease lengths and commented on the use of published relativity graphs.

This was a claim to acquire the freehold of a house under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. In 1991, the original tenants were granted a 99-year lease at a modest premium and nominal ground rent of £45 per year. The lease provided for a review of the ground rent at 25-year intervals. The review provision provided that the new rent should be a sum “representing the open market letting value of the land” as if it were a vacant site that had not been built on and which had planning permission for residential development.

The tenants gave a s.13 notice in 2004, but the tenants did not register it against the landlord’s title. The purchase price was agreed in 2006 and the outstanding terms of acquisition were to be determined by the LVT. Before the matter could be heard, the landlord transferred the freehold to his wife and she then transferred it back to him. When the matter came before the tribunal, the landlord disputed jurisdiction.