62 Mayall Road, London, SE24 0PJ LON/00AY/OCE/2026/0017
DECISION
Decisions of the Tribunal(1) The Tribunal determines the “Appropriate Sum” payable pursuant to Schedule 5, paragraph 3 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 ( the “1993 Act”) by the applicant for the collective enfranchisement of 62 Mayall Road, London, SE24 0PJ is £7,187.44.(2) The terms of the draft TR1 appended to this decision as appendix A are approved. The background[1]On 3 April 2025, the Applicant, 62 Mayall Road, Freehold Limited ( “Mayall”) issued proceedings under reference M10CL296 in the County Court seeking a vesting order pursuant to section 25(6) of the 1993 Act.[2]On 30 October 2025 DJ Hart made an order in respect of the following issues:(i) That the ‘Appropriate Sum” payable under paragraph 3(1)(b) of the 1993 Act is to be agreed between the parties, or, in default of agreement, to be determined by the First tier Tribunal.(ii) The form of transfer is to be agreed between the parties, or, in default of agreement, to be approved by this tribunal pursuant to paragraph to paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 5 of the 1993 Act.[3]The parties were unable to reach agreement on either of items (i) or (ii) and consequently the Applicant made two applications to the Tribunal.[4]On 20 November 2025, the Applicant issued an application seeking Directions in respect of:(i) the determination of the “appropriate sum” payable and(ii) the form of conveyance. Directions were issued on 16 March 2026.[5]The Applicants also made a supplementary application on 16 December 2025 to determine liability to pay service charges at the property. The Directions for this application were issued under application LON/00AY/LSC/2026/0064.[6]On 4 May 2026, the Applicants solicitor applied for an order that a single set of Directions should apply to both applications. These were issued on 21 May 2026 by Judge Latham who directed that:(i) the two cases be consolidated.(ii) the Directions given in LON/00AY/LSC/2026/0064 be revoked;(iii) the applications be governed by the Directions made on 16 March 2026 reference LON/00AY/OCE/2026/0017; and that the,(iv) The Tribunal would deal with both applications under Case Reference LON/00AY/OCE/2026/0017. The Law Under Schedule 5 of the 1993 Act the following relevant provisions apply: 2(1) Where any interests are to be vested in the nominee purchaser by virtue of a vesting order, then on his paying into court the appropriate sum in respect of each of those interests there shall be executed by such person as the court may designate a conveyance which— (a) is in a form approved by FtTand (b )contains such provisions as may be so approved for the purpose of giving effect to the relevant terms of acquisition. (2) The conveyance shall be effective to vest in the nominee purchaser the interests expressed to be conveyed, subject to and in accordance with the terms of the conveyance. 3(1) In the case of any vesting order, the appropriate sum which in accordance with paragraph 2(1) is to be paid into court in respect of any interest is the aggregate of— (a) such amount as is fixed by the relevant terms of acquisition as the price which is payable in accordance with Schedule 6 in respect of that interest; and (b) any amounts or estimated amounts determined by FtT as being, at the time of execution of the conveyance, due to the transferor from any tenants of his of premises comprised in the premises in which that interest subsists (whether due under or in respect of their leases or under or in respect of agreements collateral thereto). (2) In this paragraph “the transferor”, in relation to any interest, means the person from whom the interest is to be acquired by the nominee purchaser. (Tribunal emphasis underlining) The Applicant’s Case[7]The Applicants’ representative explained that DDJ Wood, sitting at the County Court at Central London, ordered on 17 December 2024 that pursuant to Section 25(1) of the 1993 Act, Mayall was entitled to acquire the freehold of 62 Mayall Road, London SE24 0PJ (“the Property”) at the price of £29,400.[8]Assethold were ordered to pay Mayall’s costs of £12,697, to be set off against and deducted from the purchase price of £29,400.[9]The Applicant subsequently issued proceedings seeking a vesting order pursuant to section 25(6) of the 1993 Act. The order issued by DJ Hart confirmed the terms of the transfer settled in the earlier order, directed Assethold to pay Mayall`s further costs in the sum of £9,515.56 and the First tier Tribunal determine the “Appropriate Sum” and form of conveyance in default of agreement between parties. The Applicant has confirmed agreement is not reached on the Appropriate Sum or the form of the conveyance.[10]The Applicants’ representative to assist in the calculation of the Appropriate Sum gives details of the current service charge position. These estimates are for the half year to June 2026p and are provided by Eagerstates the managing agent for Assethold. The amounts charged based upon the budgeted sums are as follows: -• Ms. C Salvidge - Flat A 62 Mayall Road – £2,023.81• Ms. M J Smith - Flat B 62 Mayall Road - £1,517.86• Ms. S L Dickson – Flat C 62 Mayall Road – £199.74 CR[11]Mr. Summers for Setfords Solicitors confirmed in the Applicants Statement of Case that all outstanding charges are paid. He asserts “no amount is owing by Mayall to Assethold.”[12]Accordingly he claims the Appropriate Sum is as shown in table 1 below.[13]Setfords Solicitors have submitted with the application a draft TR1 for review and approval by the Tribunal. The Respondents Case[14]The Respondents’ managing agent sent an e mail to the Applicants and their representative on 16 April 2026 which states: “Without a completion date it is impossible to determine the amounts due as the service charges can vary. In addition, we are checking on the status of the county court matter. If the Applicant would actually work with us then we would be able to work towards a completion. Instead, they have decided to issue applications simply to try and incur costs.”[15]This was sent to the Tribunal by Setfords Solicitors attached to an e mail dated 6th May 2026. The Tribunal received no further submissions from the Respondents. Tribunal determination[16]The Tribunal has relied upon the written submissions by the parties in making this determination. The Tribunal has validated the freehold purchase price and the assessed costs granted by DDJ Wood and DJ Hart. The sums accord with the relevant orders.[17]The Respondent provided no evidence to contradict the confirmation that all estimated service charges for the property are paid in full by the three tenants for the period 1st January -30th June 2026. The Tribunal accept the advice given by Setfords Solicitors that the tenants have no recourse to apportion costs or recover any overpayments through the provisions of Schedule 5, Paragraph 3(1)(b) of the 1993 Act. The estimated service charge sums are provided by the Respondents and are deemed as accurate.[18]The completion date is effected by Setfords Solicitors who are authorised by clause 5 of the order dated 30 October 2025 to execute the Conveyance on behalf of the Respondent {Defendant}. This should address the issue raised by the Respondent in their e mail of 16 April.[19]It is for these reasons the “Appropriate Sum’ is determined as £7,187.44.[20]The Tribunal approves the draft TR1 submitted with the application and appended to this decision as Appendix A.[21]This matter should now be returned to the County Court sitting at Central London under claim number M10CL295 for the final procedures to take place. Valuer Chairman: Ian B Holdsworth FRICS Date: 2 June 2026 Appendix A : Agreed Draft TR1 RIGHTS OF APPEAL[1]If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case.[2]The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional Office within 28-days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the Decision to the person making the application.[3]If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.[4]The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e., give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.