LVT/0013/04/13: 115 Pantbach Road, Cardiff
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Applied Rules | Leasehold Reform Act 1967 |
Date | 19 September 2013 |
Year | 2013 |
Subject Matter | Section 21(1)(a) |
Court | Leasehold Valuation Tribunals |
Judgement Number | LVT/0013/04/13 |
YTRIBIWNLYSEIDDOPRESWYL
RESIDENTIALPROPERTYTRIBUNAL
LEASEHOLDVALUATIONTRIBUNAL
Reference:LVT/0013/04/13
Inthematterof115PantbachRoad,CardiffCF204DZ
InthematterofanApplicationunderSections21(1)(a)oftheLeaseholdReformAct1967
TRIBUNALDavidEvansLLBLLM
AndrewMorrisLLB
DRhysDaviesFRICS
APPLICANTClarisePropertiesLtd
RESPONDENTSRachelEmilyReesandJohnJamesRees
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
1 TheRespondentsaretheleaseholdownersofnumber115PantbachRoad,Cardiff(the
Property),afourbedroom,semi‐detached,traditionallyconstructedhouselocatedinRhiwbina,a
residentialareanorthofthecitycentre.TheleaseunderwhichthePropertyisheld(theLease)was
grantedonthe7thJune1991byBurfordEstate&PropertyCompanyLtd(Burford)toNitaDoreen
CaseyandSylviaAirey(theOriginalLessees)forapremiumof£600andwithaninitialannualground
rentof£45.Theleaseisexpressedtobeforatermof99yearsfromthe24thJune1990.The
Applicantisthecurrentownerofthefreeholdreversion.
2 TheRespondentspurchasedtheleaseholdinterestinthePropertyonthe
7thSeptember2001.Onthe10thSeptember2011theyservedontheApplicantaNoticeofClaimto
acquirethefreeholdofthePropertyandonthe26thOctober2011,theApplicantadmittedthe
Respondents’righttodoso.NoissuearisesinrespectoftheRespondents’NoticeofClaimorthe
Applicant’sNoticeinReply.ThepartieshaveagreedthatthepricepayablefortheApplicant’s
freeholdreversionaryinterestfallstobedeterminedundersection9(1)oftheLeaseholdReformAct
1967(theAct).
1
THEISSUE
3 Thedifficultywhichhasarisenrelatestotheinterpretationofthatpartofclause1ofthe
leasewhichdealswiththepaymentofrentasfollows:
(a) Fromthecommencementofthetermtothe23rddayofJune2015theannualrentof
FORTYFIVEPOUNDS(£45.00)
(b) Ineachofthesecondandthirdperiodsoftwentyfiveyearsofthesaidtermandinthe
lastremainingtwentyfouryearsofthesaidtermsuchperiodsbeginningonthe
24thdayofJune2015the24thdayofJune2040andthe24thdayofJune2065
respectively(theRentReviewDates”)suchannualrent(beingnotlessthantherent
payableimmediatelypriortoeachrelevantRentReviewDate)beingasumrepresenting
theopenmarketlettingvalueofthelandherebyleasedasifitwereavacantsite
withoutanybuildingsthereon(“theSite”)tobeassessedinaccordancewithcurrent
openmarketvaluesoftheSiteateachrelevantRentReviewDatewhentheSiteshallfall
tobeassessedasifitwereatsuchRentReviewDateavailableforresidential
developmentforpurposesauthorisedbytheTownandcountry[sic]PlanningActs…
4 Clearly,thereisnodifficultywithregardtotheinitialrentof£45pa.However,the
surveyorsforbothpartieshaveencounteredaproblemwhenitcomestoassessingtherentwhich
wouldhavebeenpayablefromthefirstRentReviewDate,namelythe24thJune2015.The
calculationofthisrevisedrentisacriticalstepinthemethodologygenerallyemployedbysurveyors
whennegotiatingandagreeingthe“fairterms”(section1(1)oftheAct)andinparticular“the
price…whichattherelevanttimethehouseandpremises,ifsoldintheopenmarketbyawilling
seller…mightbeexpectedtorealise”ontheassumptionssetoutinsection9(1)oftheAct.Oneof
thoseassumptionsisthattheleasehasbeenextendedby50yearsundersection14oftheActata
rentdeterminedinaccordancewithsection15(2).TheApplicantconsideredthatthereviewedrent
wasakinto(butnotthesameas)therentenvisagedbysection15(2)oftheAct‐whichwasreferred
toatthehearingasa“moderngroundrent”‐whilsttheRespondentsbelievedthatthereviewed
rentwasa“nominalgroundrent”ofthetypegenerallyseeninleasesofpropertiesboughtandsold
today.
5 Asthepartieswereunabletoagreetheprice,onthe26thApril2013,theApplicantmadeits
applicationtothisTribunalforustodeterminetheamountpayablebytheRespondentsforthe
freeholdreversion.StandardDirectionswereissuedonthe16thMay2013followingwhichwewere
invitedtodealwiththeinterpretationofclause1(b)oftheLease(whichweshallrefertoasthe
RentReviewClause)asapreliminaryissue.Consequently,furtherDirectionswereissuedonthe
9thJuly2013andthematterwassetdownforhearing.SubsequentDirectionsweregivenonthe
31stJuly.
HEARING
6 ThepreliminaryissuewasheardattheTribunalOfficesonthe3rdand4thSeptember,2013.
BothpartieswererepresentedbyCounsel.MrMarkLovedayrepresentedtheApplicantand
MrBarryDenyer‐GreenrepresentedtheRespondents.Thesurveyorsforbothpartiesattendedand
gaveevidence,MrJohnGeraintEvansFRICSfortheApplicantandMrKennethJohnCooperFRICSfor
theRespondents.TheApplicantalsocalledMrPhilipMizon,apropertymanageremployedbythe
MarcusCooperGroup,agroupofcompaniesofwhichtheApplicantisapart,andMrNicholas
RichardPlotnek,theprincipalofaBirminghamvaluationpracticewhohadbeenadirectorofBurford
atthetimeofthegrantoftheLease.
2
To continue reading
Request your trial