This excellent article by John Greenwood appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 5th February.  We agree completely with its advice that homeowners take prompt action to protect their most important asset .

While ‘leasehold’ may seem to be an archaic form of property title, the fact is that leasehold title is still here in 2012. It has existed for 926 years since the Doomsday Book in 1086,  and it will not go away.  In spite of the wishes of many, which we sympathise with, the English are stuck with Leasehold. But , we can help.

The Common Hold Act of 2002 attempted to provide an alternative method of giving title to flat owners on a share of freehold basis but this has not been successful.  This does not provide succour to the many leasehold flat owners  – estimated at over 2.0 million in London alone.

Many flat owners do not know the rights which were given to them under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 as amended by the Common Hold Act 2002. It is our mission to assist flat owners acquire this knowledge and at the same time improve the market value of their property.

Flat owners, who own flats with leasehold title, have a right to extend their leases by a further 90 years and to have any ground rents reserved under the old lease reduced to zero.  Flat owners may also join together and acquire their freehold.  Freeholders cannot deny leasehold flat owners these rights.

Please call us whether you are a flat owner or a freeholder for a FREE 20 minute consultation. We are  registered with and are Members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors  and  are also Members of the Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners (ALEP).

ALEP is a not-for-profit association that brings together solicitors, surveyors, enfranchisement intermediaries and managing agents working in the residential leasehold sector.  ALEP promotes best practice by vetting members to ensure they have significant expertise in leasehold enfranchisement.  Membership of ALEP acts as a badge of assurance so that flat owners and freeholders can be confident that they are employing professionals with the right level of expertise in handling potentially complex transactions.

For further information about ALEP telephone 08452252277 or visit www.alep.org.uk. You can also follow ALEP on twitter at twitter.com/alepofficial.

John Greenwood has written a number of excellent articles which can be read at  http://journalisted.com/john-greenwood

Read the article here: Home owners urged to extend leaseholds
The Telegraph, 5 Feb 2012

In October, RICS set out the Sixth Edition of Guidance Notes for Party Wall Surveyors, including new standards for awards and revised notices.  Increasing litigation in party wall matters means that it is imperative for surveyors to follow these latest guidance notes, which have been prepared by RICS to ensure best practice.

We have adopted all these improvements and owners who appoint us to represent their interests can be assured that the best and most up-to-date practice will be followed.

In November, RICS conducted a half-day seminar on subsidence – its principal causes and best practice in dealing with buildings affected by subsidence.

2011 has been a very busy year with important changes being made and we are confident this evolution will continue in 2012 and beyond.

We are now taking an extended Christmas break so as to return refreshed and ready for all the challenges we know 2012 will bring.

Our first “bulletin” to be published early in the New Year will deal with important changes and recent developments in the world of leasehold enfranchisement and lease extension valuations – to be followed in February by the latest changes affecting surveyors acting as expert witnesses.  We have recently been added to the RICS panel of Expert Witness Surveyors.

There is much to look forward to in the year ahead and we take this opportunity to wish all our clients and friends in the legal profession together with our RICS colleagues a very Happy Christmas and a successful 2012.

However when flat owners seek to extend their lease or to acquire the freehold – which they may do in accordance with the provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 – substantial difficulties can arise.  Nevertheless, these difficulties need not be insurmountable.

First, it is necessary to obtain a valuation of the premium for lease extension and/or the freehold.  The next stage is for the solicitor to obtain a Court ‘vesting order’, having first made detailed enquiries to prove that the landlord is absent and cannot be traced.  Once this Court order has been obtained, the London Rent Assessment Panel/Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) then fix either the amount of premium or the value of the freehold.

The final stage involves the valuer, who is retained by the flat owner(s), preparing a detailed expert witness report which is considered by an LVT, but no personal appearances are made.  The LVT make their decision on the basis of the evidence produced in the written expert witness report and, of course, on their own experience.

 It is vital that the expert report is as full and as detailed as possible to assist the Tribunal to make its determination.  LVT’s are meticulous in highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies contained in expert written reports.

In a recent decision of the London Rent Assessment Panel/Leasehold Valuation Tribunal under reference LON/00BA/OLR/2011/0561, the LVT commented:

“12. The comparables relied upon by Mr Tibbatts were not all helpful because some were lacking in detail.  However, correspondence from local selling agents produced by Mr Tibbatts was of assistance to us as were two of the comparables.”

“13. Taken overall, we were satisfied that Mr Tibbatts had approached the task of valuation with care and professionalism and we do not quarrel with his valuation of the premium at £15,743.”

While the whole process may seem long-winded and time-consuming, flat owners may recover their costs in pursuing absent freeholders and obtaining their rights of lease extension and/or the compulsory purchase of their freehold to include fees in connection with the expert witness report.

These costs are deducted from the sums awarded by a LVT and the net amount is paid into Court pending the future appearance of an absentee freeholder.

Please contact Mike Tibbatts for further advice and assistance.

In a recent case involving two flats at Wimbledon Close, The Downs, London SW20, the notices of claim for lease extension sought premium values in the region of £33,000 for each flat.  Freshwater plc sought £65,000 in each case in the counter notices; in their claim in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) this was reduced to £45,000 for each flat.

The applications/claims were heard in the LVT on 17 May 2011 and the majority of the core issues put forward by the two flat owners, represented by Mike Tibbatts, were accepted by the Tribunal.  Premium values in respect of each flat were fixed at £35,373 and £35,553.

The full transcript of the Residential Property Tribunal Service (London Rent Assessment Panel) can be found at reference MR LON/00BA/OLR/2011/0004 and 0005.

If a freeholder and/or his appointed valuer refuse to negotiate sensibly and generally use the 1993 Act in such a way that flat owners need to incur additional costs in supporting perfectly reasoned and correct arguments, flat owners can win!

FLAT OWNERS – DO NOT BE BULLIED!

Join up with other flat owners within your block and make collective applications for lease extensions at one time – alternatively, demand the right to buy your Freehold.

For more information and assistance, call Mike Tibbatts on 020 8947 7040.

Revisions to the RICS Redbook, which details valuation standards to be adopted by all RICS registered valuers, were reviewed in detail.

“To a defence solicitor, there is nothing more pleasing than a legible and complete set of site notes in a clearly expressed methodology.” Quote:  Louisa Robins – Robin Simon LLP – RICS Residential Journal, March 2011.

Valuations need to reflect changing market conditions even though the market may be slow but yet competitive.  At the same time, valuations need to meet the expectations of clients, the Courts and RICS.

Valuers cannot value for “future risk” when the future is uncertain.  The presentation of comparable evidence is key to well reasoned disucssion to arrive at a safe valuation.

A thorough review of Scullion v Bank of Scotland plc (t/a Colleys), which was reported in the Estates Gazette on 25 June 2011, was key to highlighting these latest and most modern approaches.

Essentially, in this case the Appellant (the purchaser) attempted to rely on a valuation carried out on behalf of the mortgagee, which was incorrect.  It was held that even though this valuation had faults, the purchaser, who was buying the property as a buy-to-let investment, should have obtained his own valuation advice on rental and capital values.  There was no duty of care between the valuer for the mortgagee and the purchaser.

Recent updates to Building Regulations and the latest advances for controlling and managing dampness affecting buildings were discussed in detail.

New applications, (e.g. Thermability Pro) currently being developed by Proten to improve the insulation qualities of solid brick walls was discussed in depth, as were new measurements for recording dampness in external walls.

A discussion of revised RICS Practice Statements concerning the methodology to be adopted when providing reinstatement costing of buildings was well received.

There was a fascinating insight into the potential for the artesian qualities in subsoil starata for provision of ground source heat pumps in the future to replace heating systems currently reliant on carbon fuels.

Finally, a welcome update on asbestos and its management in existing buildings was delivered.

Demolition of a building, including “grubbing out” foundations can be “excavations” within the meaning of the Act and can require that formal notices under S6 are served before work commences.

Notice of excavations within 3.0 m of an adjoining owner’s property must be served, but common sense between surveyors should prevail if the distance is say 2.90 or thereabouts.  Similarly, appointing owners should be encouraged to take pragmatic stances. The chance of possible damage resulting from distant but just within 3.0m of proposed excavations is considered remote.

Building Owners wishing to enclose on an existing party wall may do so subject to paying a sum equivalent to 50% of the cost of building the wall at the time the application is made.  It makes no difference how old is the wall but clearly an old wall may have to be strengthened to accommodate the wishes of a building owner and these costs will, of course, be allowed to offset.  Section 11(11) of the Act covers these provisions.

The subject of Special Foundations is another key issue, which I will discuss in another blog in the coming weeks.

The expert witness conference also heard a discussion on ‘hot-tubbing’, as a means of litigation where two experts are appointed over the same litigated matter, as well as a presentation of Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals of his review of civil litigation costs.

Broadly, a qualifying tenant is a person who holds an original lease in excess of 21 years,which is the same basic qualification for 1993 Act claims. It is crucial that wording and content of Section 13 claims for enfranchisement under the ’93 Act are absolutely correct, otherwise the claim may be declared invalid by freeholders in their notices of counter claim.  An engaging discussion followed at the workshop on the effects of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and the requirement of the landlord/freeholder to advise and seek the approval of all long leaseholders in a building where alterations are proposed (e.g. loft extensions, ground floor extensions etc).

The meaning of ‘development value’ was discussed in regard to enfranchisement claims under the ‘93 Act.  The fact that part of a building might be capable of further development is not necessarily an excuse for a freeholder to enhance his demand for a higher freehold value. In the case of McHail and Another v Earl Cadogan, interesting valuation issues were raised, the principal one being that there could be an assumption, when valuing the freehold interest, that no 1993 Act rights apply.  This condition would not apply when valuing the tenant’s interests.