Mansal Securities Ltd and others v. Leasehold Valuation Tribunal of the Midland Rent Assessment Panel [electronic resource]
Mansal Securities Ltd and others v. Leasehold Valuation Tribunal of the Midland Rent Assessment Panel [electronic resource]
- 2009
LRA 185 2007, 24 February 2009. The case considers whether the Sportelli guidance applies to valuations under section 9(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and whether the deferment rate in the West Midlands area and under the section 9(1) is different from the Sportelli generic rate. The freeholders of properties appealed against a decision of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) involving valuations under section 9(1). The LVT had determined the deferment rate for calculation of the freehold interest at 5.5%. The freeholders appealed for the rate to be set at 4.75%, the same figure used for houses in the case of Cadogan and Sportelli, and approved by the Court of Appeal. "Held": The appeal is allowed. The deferment rate is set at 5% for the 22 appeal properties. The appeal against the capitalisation rate used by the LVT for one of the properties fails.
MANSAL SECURITIES LTD AND OTHERS V LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL OF THE MIDLAND RENT ASSESSMENT PANEL
FARR V MILLERSONS INVESTMENTS LTD
EARL CADOGAN AND ANOTHER V SPORTELLI AND ANOTHER
NICHOLSON V GOFF
OFFICIAL CUSTODIAN OF CHARITIES V GOLDRIDGE
WILKES V LARCROFT PROPERTIES
HILDRON FINANCE LTD V GREENHILL HAMPSTEAD LTD
LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT, 1967, SECTION 9(1)
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
England and Wales--1543-
LRA 185 2007, 24 February 2009. The case considers whether the Sportelli guidance applies to valuations under section 9(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and whether the deferment rate in the West Midlands area and under the section 9(1) is different from the Sportelli generic rate. The freeholders of properties appealed against a decision of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) involving valuations under section 9(1). The LVT had determined the deferment rate for calculation of the freehold interest at 5.5%. The freeholders appealed for the rate to be set at 4.75%, the same figure used for houses in the case of Cadogan and Sportelli, and approved by the Court of Appeal. "Held": The appeal is allowed. The deferment rate is set at 5% for the 22 appeal properties. The appeal against the capitalisation rate used by the LVT for one of the properties fails.
MANSAL SECURITIES LTD AND OTHERS V LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL OF THE MIDLAND RENT ASSESSMENT PANEL
FARR V MILLERSONS INVESTMENTS LTD
EARL CADOGAN AND ANOTHER V SPORTELLI AND ANOTHER
NICHOLSON V GOFF
OFFICIAL CUSTODIAN OF CHARITIES V GOLDRIDGE
WILKES V LARCROFT PROPERTIES
HILDRON FINANCE LTD V GREENHILL HAMPSTEAD LTD
LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT, 1967, SECTION 9(1)
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
England and Wales--1543-