Leasehold Enfranchisement: Freeholders Beware!
Do you own the freehold of a block of flats? Do you own a building with two or more flats in it? If you answered yes to either question, is there a head lease in place between you as freeholder and the tenants of the individual flats? If the answer is yes again, you may be at risk of losing a potentially valuable asset.
In a recent decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in June 2015,Trustees of the Alice Ellen Cooper-Dean Charitable Foundation –v- Greensleeves Owners Limited, a group of six tenants, in a building comprising of eight flats, managed to acquire the freehold of the building at no cost to themselves: in other words paying a premium of exactly £nil to the freeholder. Despite the freehold being valued at some £166,770, the freeholder was not entitled to any compensation for the loss, under the compensation provision of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (1993 Act) relating to collective enfranchisement.
How did this happen?
The factual background:
- The Trustees of the Alice Ellen Cooper-Dean Charitable Foundation (Trustees) were the freeholders of the building;
- The head lease was held by a management company whose shareholders were the tenants of the eight flats in the building;
- In 2012, six of the tenants were granted lease extensions of their individual flats, the lease extensions being at a peppercorn rent, replacing a ground rent of £300 per annum. The freeholder received a premium of £2,612 for each flat. The management company received £19,495 as compensation for their continuing liability for rent under the head lease, some £2,400 per annum. As a result of these lease extensions the head lease became an onerous contract as the ground rents received from the tenants had been reduced to considerably less than that payable to the Trustees;
- Later in 2012 the six tenants formed a company, Greensleeves Owners Limited (Greensleeves), and that company claimed to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement of the building i.e. to acquire the freehold of the building, and the head lease, for a premium of £1 for the freehold, £1 for the head lease and £1 for the garages and gardens etc.;
- Greensleeves argued that the premium payable to the Trustees was £nil because the head lease, as an onerous contract, had a negative value of some £201,900 and that this had to be set off against the value of the freehold (£166,770), when calculating the premium payable. As the negative value of the head lease exceeded the value of the freehold, and in accordance with the provisions of the 1993 Act, the correct premium payable to the Trustees was nil;
- The Trustees tried to argue that to deprive them of a valuable asset with no compensation payable was contrary to their rights under the Human Rights Act1998;
- The First Tier Tribunal (Lands Chamber), or Leasehold Valuation Tribunal as it was at the relevant time, agreed with Greensleeves and held that the premium payable to the freeholder was £nil and that the Human Rights Act 1998 did not give the Trustees a good defence. The Trustees appealed;
- The Upper Tribunal agreed with the First Tier Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.
The Upper Tribunal decided the “netting off” provisions of the 1993 Act were as claimed by the tenants and that any disadvantage to the freeholder could be avoided, or at least mitigated, by the freeholder making an application for compensation under Schedule 13 paragraph 5 of the 1993 Act, in the course of the tenants’ application for lease extensions earlier the same year. Although at that stage it might not be clear if a collective enfranchisement application would arise in the future, there must be a chance it would do so and that the freeholders asset would be devalued as a result. The case of Nailrile Limited –v- Earl Cadogan  established that a freeholder confronted with a lease extension claim or claims was entitled to recover compensation to cover exactly this risk.
If you are a freeholder likely to face this situation, make sure you make a claim for compensation on any tenant’s application for a lease extension if appropriate.
Related news & insights
Insights / Court of Appeal: High Court decision on break clauses and vacant possession overturned in Capitol Park Leeds plc v. Global Radio Services Ltd 
02-12-2021 / Real Estate
This case concerns the thorny subject of what constitutes valid exercise of a conditional break clause by a tenant.
News / Ince advises London local authority trading company in £38m acquisition of 155 properties
26-05-2021 / Real Estate
Our Real Estate team recently advised local authority trading company, TBG Open Door Limited (part of The Barnet Group), on the acquisition of 155 properties in a deal worth £38 million.
News / Your future in the UK post-Brexit and post-Covid 19: what you need to know
08-04-2021 / Real Estate
Over the last twelve months, the United Kingdom (UK) like the rest of the world, has seen the COVID -19 pandemic impact hugely on our ability to travel freely, to relocate for business, work, investment and education. We now see some light at the end of the tunnel with the UK’s mass immunisation programme which has seen infection (and thankfully) mortality levels fall dramatically. This is finally giving people hope for the future, resulting in renewed interest in the UK as a safe place to live, to invest in, and as somewhere to educate their children.
News / Estate Agents & AML: Knock Knock Who’s There?
26-03-2021 / Real Estate
The Fifth Money Laundering Directive came into force in January 2020, extending the UK Money Laundering Regulations and implementation of regulatory controls to include real estate firms, real estate brokers, estate agents and rental intermediaries.
News / Ince launches first integrated technology and legal advisory know-your-customer (KYC) solution in the real estate sector
15-03-2021 / Real Estate
New digital client onboarding solution delivered in collaboration with leading technology providers eLegal, Yoti and Arachnys.
Insights / Seven top tips for creating overage (claw-back) agreements for property developments
03-09-2020 / Real Estate
Property development often involves uncertain outcomes, and the pandemic has highlighted that circumstances can change in unexpected ways.