Image from Google Jackets

Mansal Securities Ltd and others v. Leasehold Valuation Tribunal of the Midland Rent Assessment Panel [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2009Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: 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.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 146964-2001

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.