ARTICLE
6 November 2007

Leasehold Enfranchisement – The Latest Guidance

CC
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang

Contributor

CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang logo

CMS is a Future Facing firm with 79 offices in over 40 countries and more than 5,000 lawyers globally. Combining local market insight with a global perspective, CMS provides business-focused advice to help clients navigate change confidently. The firm's expertise and innovative approach anticipate challenges and develop solutions. CMS is committed to diversity, inclusivity, and corporate social responsibility, fostering a supportive culture. The firm addresses key client concerns like efficiency and regulatory challenges through services like Law-Now, offering real-time eAlerts, mobile access, an extensive legal archive, specialist zones, and global events.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the Lands Tribunal decision that increased the value of most residential investment portfolios.
United Kingdom Real Estate and Construction

The Court of Appeal has upheld the Lands Tribunal decision that increased the value of most residential investment portfolios.

As reported in previous LawNow in September 2006 the Tribunal issued guidance on the "deferment rate". This rate is an important component in the valuation of a freeholder’s interest when dealing with a claim by a long-leaseholder to extend a lease or purchase the freehold of a property either individually in the case of a house or collectively in the case of a block of flats. Setting out new guidance, the Tribunal applied a deferment rate of 4.75% for houses and 5% for flats, regardless of location.

The Court of Appeal was satisfied it was in the public interest for the rate to be set in order to reduce costs and provide consistency. However, there did need to be a distinction between valuations of properties in prime central London and elsewhere. When considering properties outside prime central London, the deferment rate adopted by the Tribunal is to be no more than a starting point.

The Court of Appeal further concluded that hope value – the value arising from the option that a freeholder would have had to sell the freehold or lease extension to a tenant in the future – could not, save for one limited exception, be claimed as a separate element in determining the price to be paid in the case of lease extension, collective enfranchisement or freehold house claims.

Both the Court and those involved in the case agreed that Parliament should consider and further legislate on the issue.

Law: Cadogan v Sportelli (25 October 2007)

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 05/11/2007.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More