27, Rodney Street, Liverpool L1 9E: MAN/00BY/OC6/2023/0003 MAN/00BY/OC6/2023/0003

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No MAN/00BY/OC6/2023/0003
Between
Sean Flanaghan (Represented by Orme Associates LLP)ApplicantLiverpool City CouncilRespondent
Before
Mr J R RimmerMr R Harris MBE FRICSDate 14 March 2024Property: 27, Rodney Street, Liverpool L1 9EH
1FIRST-TIER TRIBUNALPROPERTY CHAMBER(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)Case Reference : MAN/00BY/OC6/2023/0003Property : 27, Rodney Street, Liverpool L1 9EHApplicant : Sean Flanaghan(Represented by Orme Associates LLP)Respondents : Liverpool City CouncilType ofApplications: Application under Section 21(1)(ba)Leasehold reform Act 1967 to determine thereasonable costs payable under Section 9(4)of that Act.Tribunal Members : Mr J R RimmerMr R Harris MBE, FRICSDate of Decision : 14th March 2024Decision : The amount payable in respect of thereasonable costs of the Respondent is£1,100.00 for the reasons set out herein. 2Preliminary1 This application arises out of an application for enfranchisement of the freeholdof the dwelling house at 27, Rodney Street, Liverpool L1 9EH under theprovisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“the Act”). In such a matter theRespondent is entitled to recover the reasonable legal costs for its work in respectof the transaction under the Act and to the further costs of its surveyor/valuerengaged on its behalf of to seek to establish the price payable.2 Those costs in this case are the in-house costs incurred by the Respondent’slegal and valuation teams and in respect of which the parties have been unable toreach an agreement. The Applicant is represented by Orme Associates.The Law3 Section 21(1)(ba) of the Act provides for the determination of the reasonablecosts of the Respondent freeholder to a notice under the Act if those reasonablecosts cannot be agreed in relation to:(a) Any investigation by the landlord of that person’s right to acquire thefreehold;(b) Any conveyance or assurance of the house and premises or any part thereofor any outstanding estate or interest therein;(c) Deducing, evidencing and verifying the title in the house and premises orany estate or interest therein;(d) making out and furnishing such abstracts and copies as the person givingthe notice may require;(e) valuation of the house and premises.Submissions4 The Tribunal has considered extensive submissions from both parties inrelation to the matter and it has also had the opportunity of consideringthe history of the acquisition of the freehold to the property as well as thelack of agreement upon the issue of the costs payable.5 It notes that within the documents that have been sent to it a somewhatconfusing history of the transaction becomes apparent:• On 8th July 2020 an email is sent to the Applicant by theRespondent’s officer indicating that he is prepared to recommendto the Council acceptance of an amount of £27,420.00 for thefreehold of the property, together with £1,1oo.00 for fees.• By 4th August 2022 that freehold price is confirmed and the feessuggested have increased to £1,150.00• On 30th May 2023 there appears to be final agreement on a price of£32,000.00, but fees, now in an amount of £2,400.00 remain thesubject of dispute. 3• No satisfactory explanation for the delay of nearly three years and aresulting increase in price are provided and the Tribunal seesnothing of significance having been done from the Respondent’sperspective during that period to increase the costs incurred.6 Mr Orme states that he has not been sure whether the email of 8th June2020 amounts to a binding agreement between the parties as to price andcosts. This appears to direct his mind to seeking to close the matter of theprice and then to dispute costs as being unreasonable.7 Much is then made by both parties as to what constitutes reasonable costsand how that reasonableness is to be evaluated by the Tribunal: theApplicant by reference to an analysis of market conditions and theRespondent by reference to published tariffs and time expended.8 The Tribunal is satisfied that this disputation is unnecessary and of littleeffect. The email of 8th July 2020 comes from a competent, trained officerof the Respondent. The Tribunal is confident that it may assume that anyrecommendation to the Council as to what constitutes the price and thesum for costs will be a reasonable one and not an unreasonable one.9 With that in mind, the Tribunal does not need to side with either party asto whether that email from 2020 does or does not evidence a bindingcontract. It is however a clear indication of what one party considersreasonable fees. The Tribunal considers that Mr Orme is entitled to relyupon it, absent any suggestion that on his part that he knew or ought tohave known it manifestly to be a mistake. The Tribunal does not think thatthe Respondent is able to justify any higher amount, let alone asignificantly higher one, in the absence of any clear evidence as to why theoriginal amount might have become unreasonably low.J R RIMMER (CHAIRMAN)© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024 4