Enfranchisement - LVT Bulletin | Exclusive Analysis of Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Decisions

Latest Articles

Earl Cadogan and other v Pitts and another; Earl Cadogan and another v Sportelli and another Dec 18, 2008: Enfranchisement is the process whereby leaseholders can force their freeholder to sell them the freehold of the property. The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 provided for the enfranchisement of leasehold houses whilst those who live in flats can utilise the collective enfranchisement procedure in the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. Alternatively, a leaseholder can seek to force the freeholder to grant an extension to his existing lease, again under the 1993 Act.

The work of the LVT in the south Oct 23, 2008: Robert Long, President of the Southern Panel of the Residential Property Tribunal, provides an insight into the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal’s (LVT) operations in the south of England.

Earl Cadogan v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd; Howard De Walden Estates Ltd v Aggio and others Jul 17, 2008: Both appellants had sought to exercise the right to an individual lease extension, as contained in Part 1, Chapter 2, Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The freeholder in each case disputed that the head lessee was a “qualifying tenant.”

Majorstakes Ltd v Curtis Feb 18, 2008: C served a notice under s.42 Leasehold Refomr, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 claiming the right to a new lease. M served a counter notice, contending that it intended to redevelop the whole or a substantial part of the premises...

Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties Feb 18, 2008: B was the leasehold owner of a terraced property built in the 18th century. From 1942 onwards, the lower floors were used for business use, but the upper floors retained as residential accommodation. B sought to acquire the freehold pursuant to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967...

Earl Cadogan and others v Sportelli and others Nov 19, 2007: The freeholders appealed to the Court of Appeal on issues concerning the proper approach to the deferment rate and hope value in enfranchisement claims.

Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Poets Chase Freehold Company Ltd Aug 17, 2007: Leasehold Enfranchisement
Sinclair Gardens were the freehold owner of blocks of flats at Poets Chase, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. The blocks of flats were premises to which Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 applied. In December 2005, the tenants served a notice under s.13 of the 1993 Act, purporting to commence the enfranchisement process.

Glen International v Triplerose Ltd Jun 27, 2007: The claimant was a long leaseholder of a flat. In April 2004, the claimant had been provided with contact details for both the freeholder and his agent. In August 2004, the claimant’s solicitors wrote to the defendant’s agent in relation to dilapidations at the property. The letter was copied to the freeholder at the address he had given in April 2004.

Howard De Walden Estates Ltd v Aggio; Earl Cadogan and Cadogan Estates Ltd v 26 Cadogan Square Jun 27, 2007: These two cases concerned the ability of a head lessee to claim a new lease under the provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. In each case, the head lessee of the premises, which were made up of various flats and common parts, served notices claiming the right to extend the head lease.

Oakwood Court (Holland Park) Ltd v Daejan Properties Ltd Feb 20, 2007: The claimant company sought a declaration that it was entitled to exercise the right to enfranchise and purchase the freehold of the building from the defendant freehold owner.

Cawthorne & others v Hamdan Feb 20, 2007: The defendant was the freehold owner of a property which comprised of six flats. Five of those were let on long leases. In 2001 four of the five long leaseholders served notice claiming the right to enfranchise under Part 1, Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The defendant served a counter notice which did not include any leaseback proposals in respect of the sixth flat.

43 Rednall Drive Jan 26, 2007: The tenants had applied, under s48 Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 for a new lease of 43 Rednall Drive. The only issue between the parties was the price to be paid. The LVT adopted an approach and a final figure which neither party contended for.