Skip to main content

Property Chamber Tribunal Services

the last resort

myleasehold|Our Services|Property Chamber Tribunal Services

Do you want to avoid a lengthy valuation dispute?

myleasehold can provide both Landlords and Leaseholders with;

  • professional, pragmatic and clear advice
  • a wealth of expertise and experience
  • where possible, an opportunity to avoid a costly dispute

Landlords and Leaseholders must carefully consider the issues when instructing solicitors and surveyors on attending a First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)*.

myleasehold considers the Tribunal as the last resort. The formal Notice procedure gives the parties 6 months to negotiate a settlement, which is what we aim to achieve.

Should the matter not be resolved by that time, the Leaseholder must apply to the Tribunal, failing which the Leaseholder’s Notice is deemed to have been withdrawn. In many cases the application to the Tribunal is a holding position for the Leaseholder, as there will still be several months to try and reach settlement with the Landlord. If no settlement can be reached the Tribunal will, if required, make their determination. An application to the Tribunal activates procedures in which they court directions to the parties indicating provisional dates for a hearing, which are later confirmed as a date certain. The parties can reach agreement at any point in time up to the date of the hearing.

myleasehold has the expertise and experience to provide Landlords and Leaseholders alike with  vlauable pragmatic valuation advice.

A Landlord wants to achieve the best price, whilst the Leaseholder wants to pay the lowest. To avoid the dispute ending up in a Tribunal, both parties ultimately need to be realistic in their expectation, as their appointed valuer has a duty to the Tribunal to present evidence in an unbiased manner. First Tier Tribunals are experienced and well-versed in property matters and inflated or supressed valuations will not meet with good favour on the part of the tribunal.

On certain occasions, where the parties cannot reach agreement myleasehold has previously represented clients at First Tier Tribunals. If you are interested, you can review the recent cases that myleasehold has acted in.

Valuation Tribunal Case Studies

Case Study 1: Collective Enfranchisement

King Henry’s Road, NW3 3QX – Case No. 1020
Decision date 30 June 2006

Mark Wilson acted for the Landlord in a collective enfranchisement case.

The Tribunal had to be involved due to the Tenants’ refusal to communicate with the Landlord.

The outcome of the case was in keeping with our valuation, except for the value of the loft space. The LVT decided that the loft space had a value but failed to explain how it had arrived at its figure.

Where the communication between Landlord and Tenant breaks down, we can provide a valuation for a lease extension or collective enfranchisement so that the Tenant or Landlord has a considered opinion as to what is realistic and fair.

Case Study 4: Lease Extension

Clarendon Road, W11 4JG
Decision date 18 December 2007

Mark Wilson acted on behalf of the Landlord in three separate lease extension cases in the same building.

It was impossible to arrange meaningful negotiations with the Tenants, which made an LVT hearing necessary.

Our valuation methodology was deemed sound and met with the panel’s approval.

Case Study 2: Collective Enfranchisement

Cooper House , NW8 8NJ – Case No. 1614
Decision date 5 February 2008

Acting on behalf of the Tenants in a collective enfranchisement case against the City of Westminster, the case involved complicated legal issues the parties could not resolve.

With regard to the compensation payable for the freehold, the LVT concluded that most matters had been agreed by the parties before the hearing and therefore it only needed to determine the right price for the secondary parts of the property. This largely corresponded to our valuation.

We can help you avoid lengthy and costly disputes by providing Landlords and Tenants with a valuation and advice that is both objective and considered.

Case Study 3: Collective Enfranchisement

Glenrosa Street, SW6 2QY – Case No. 1184
Decision date 16 August 2006

Mark Wilson for a Landlord in a collective enfranchisement case.

As the Tenants had refused to communicate or negotiate with the Landlord, the matter had to be determined by an LVT.

The outcome was in keeping with our valuation.

We can help you avoid lengthy and costly disputes by providing Landlords and Tenants with a valuation and advice that is both objective and considered.