Image from Google Jackets

30 Upperton Gardens Management Ltd v Akano and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 45 EG 121-122; 46 EG 131-136(6)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: SE Rent Assessment Panel 31 July 1990. Application to lvt under Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s13 by U as nominated agent on behalf of residents of Martello Estate to apply for the right as qualifying tenants to compel the sale of the reversion by the new landlord to them. The estate in Pevensey Pay, East Sussex consists of 84 flats in four separate blocks with 62 garages. Flats let on 99 lease (with the exception of one with a 99 lease) with 73 unexpired and mostly at £15 pa ground rent., Freehold reversion of whole estate sold by public auction in 1989 for £18,000. Tribunal felt it was necessary to determine that the Act was intended to apply to such a development scheme under one management whilst both parties agreed to deal with the matter as single transaction. Nominated agent contested that the auction sale price of £18,000 was double the going rate. The Tribunal decided that the 1987 Act did not make provision for negotiations between new landlord and nominated agent and accept
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS43704 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 43101-1001

SE Rent Assessment Panel 31 July 1990. Application to lvt under Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s13 by U as nominated agent on behalf of residents of Martello Estate to apply for the right as qualifying tenants to compel the sale of the reversion by the new landlord to them. The estate in Pevensey Pay, East Sussex consists of 84 flats in four separate blocks with 62 garages. Flats let on 99 lease (with the exception of one with a 99 lease) with 73 unexpired and mostly at £15 pa ground rent., Freehold reversion of whole estate sold by public auction in 1989 for £18,000. Tribunal felt it was necessary to determine that the Act was intended to apply to such a development scheme under one management whilst both parties agreed to deal with the matter as single transaction. Nominated agent contested that the auction sale price of £18,000 was double the going rate. The Tribunal decided that the 1987 Act did not make provision for negotiations between new landlord and nominated agent and accept