Automated Summary
Key Facts
The First-Tier Tribunal Property Chamber ruled that Aidan Freyne must pay Brickfield Properties Ltd £3,070.66 in costs under section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, following the Respondent's failure to engage with the lease extension application process and correspondence.
Issues
The Tribunal determined whether costs claimed by the Applicant under section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 were reasonable and recoverable. The Tribunal found the costs reasonable and ordered the Respondent to pay £3,070.66.
Holdings
The Tribunal determined that the Respondent must pay the Applicant £3,070.66 in costs incurred under section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The Tribunal found the costs to be reasonable and recoverable in full, noting the Applicant was justified in using a specialist lawyer and the Respondent's lack of engagement necessitated statutory procedures. The Tribunal also noted the Applicant's document bundle was unnecessarily large but did not affect the costs determination.
Remedies
The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant costs of £3,070.66 in accordance with section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
Monetary Damages
3070.66
Legal Principles
The Tribunal applied section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which entitles the landlord to recover reasonable costs incurred in responding to a tenant's notice for a new lease, up to the point the tenant indicated they would not proceed.
Cited Statute
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993
Judge Name
Judge Nicol
Passage Text
- The legal fees involve the time of a specialist grade A fee earner charged out at £495 per hour. While the initial work on applications for new leases is fairly standard, it requires a specialist to know what to do and how to spot relevant issues. The law in this area is relatively complex and specialised. Therefore, the Applicant was justified in using what, in other contexts, might be regarded as an expensive lawyer.
- The Tribunal is not required to do a detailed examination of all the costs. The process is a summary one. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the costs claimed by the Applicant are reasonable and recoverable in full.
- In correspondence, the Respondent sought to criticise the legal fees for involving a 'boiler-plate' draft lease, unrelated to the form of the existing lease, and the valuation fee for involving a desktop valuation without an inspection of the property. However, there is a minimum amount of work to be done in these cases, irrespective of the individual circumstances. The Applicant's hand was forced by the Respondent's lack of engagement with their correspondence. They had to go through the relevant statutory procedure so long as the Respondent's stance had developed no further than the original Notice of Claim.