Automated Summary
Key Facts
The First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber ruled on a dispute between Julia Duncan and Keighley Investments regarding the reasonable costs for collective enfranchisement valuation at 1 Penshurst Road, Ramsgate. The Applicant's valuer (Stewart Gray) charged £1,500.00 plus VAT, while the Respondent's valuer (David Ford) claimed £3,150.00 plus VAT. The Tribunal adjusted the Respondent's initially higher schedule costs (£4,515.00 plus VAT) to £3,150.00 plus VAT, deeming it reasonable under Section 33(1) of the 1993 Act despite downward adjustments to specific activities like lease analysis and comparable research. The decision was made without an oral hearing.
Issues
The Tribunal determined whether the £3,150 plus VAT valuation costs for collective enfranchisement under Section 33(1) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 were reasonable, considering factors such as the valuer's experience, time spent, and hourly rates. The costs were found to be reasonable despite adjustments to certain elements.
Holdings
The Tribunal determined that the valuer's costs of £3,150.00 plus VAT are reasonable and payable by the nominee purchaser under Section 91(2)(d) of the 1993 Act. This decision considered adjustments to the Respondent's claimed costs, including reduced charges for lease reading, comparable research, and valuation preparation, while acknowledging the valuer's experience and capped fee structure. The Tribunal concluded the adjusted total (£3,390.00 plus VAT) remained higher than the actual charged amount (£3,150.00 plus VAT), which was deemed acceptable given the legal provisions and market factors.
Remedies
The Tribunal rules that the valuer's costs of £3,150.00 plus VAT are reasonable and must be paid by the nominee purchaser. After adjusting the initial claimed costs of £4,515.00 plus VAT by reducing certain activities, the final amount of £3,150.00 plus VAT was accepted as in line with the agreed cap per flat.
Monetary Damages
3150.00
Legal Principles
The Tribunal applied Section 33(1) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 to assess the reasonableness of valuer's costs for collective enfranchisement. The decision focused on whether the costs claimed by the Respondent were reasonable and incidental to the valuation process.
Cited Statute
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993
Judge Name
Judge P J Barber
Passage Text
- 15. Section 33(1) makes broad allowance for any valuation costs of and incidental to the valuation of any interest in the Property; the Tribunal considers that the heads of work as identified by the Respondent in the Schedule are in principle reasonable and within Section 33(1). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and on the basis of such evidence actually provided in the bundle, the Tribunal accepts that the amount claimed for valuation costs, being £3,150.00 plus VAT, is reasonable.
- 10. The issue for determination is whether the costs claimed under Section 33(1) of the 1993 Act are the reasonable costs of and incidental to any valuation of any interest in the specified premises.
- 12. The Respondent had indicated in its statement that all the flats were different leases, except Flats 2 & 4 which had the same lease terms; given Mr Ford's long experience it might be reasonable to expect him to have been able to spend a shorter period, namely 30 minutes per lease, in reading... The above would result in the total of £4,515.00 plus VAT being properly adjusted or reduced by £1,125.00, down to £3,390.00 plus VAT. However, even after adjustment, such total remains higher than the fee actually charged, based on a cap of £450.00 per flat, in a total of £3,150.00 plus VAT.