In the case of a new lease extension premium the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) found the First Tier Tribunal was wrong, as a matter of valuation principle, to rely on an average of the RICS 2009 graphs and to ignore the more recent relativity graphs for Prime Central London.
A notice served by a tenants’ association on the freeholder of a block of flats under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.13 was valid, notwithstanding a lack of clarity as to whether a basement car park was included, where it would have been sufficiently clear to a reasonable landlord that the tenants intended to acquire the freehold to the whole site. Moreover, the block of flats was to be regarded as a single, coherent structure which was built as part of a single development so that only one notice was required.
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Tribunal) found that student bedsits described in the leases and publicity material as “Studystudios” did qualify as “flats” for the purposes of entitlement to the ‘right to manage’ under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Pt 2. The studios were deemed residential parts of the premises and, as such, qualified for inclusion within a ‘right to manage’ application.
In this instance a tenant had no statutory right to acquire the freehold title of an end-terrace house where certain structural parts, including the roof and foundations, were excluded from the demised premises.
Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.1(1) the phrase “a tenant of a leasehold house” should be read as “a tenant of substantially the whole of a leasehold house”; as such, in this instance the claim failed as the demise did not extend to the roof or foundations.
The tenants of an end-of-terrace house, demised under a long lease that excluded certain structural parts, including the roof and the foundations, had no right to acquire the freehold title as they were not “a tenant of a leasehold house” under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s.1(1). The phrase “a tenant of a leasehold house” should be read as “a tenant of substantially the whole of a leasehold house”; accordingly, the tenants could not qualify under s.1(1) where the demise did not extend to the roof or the foundations.