000			01925cab a2200229 4500
001			L130061
008			050620n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u130061
041			_aeng
245			_aHareford Ltd v Barnet London Borough Council
260			_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2005] 23 EG 140 (CS)
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2005] EG 122-128(4)
520			_aCentral London County Court 17 May 2005, unreported. Considers whether a mixed property constituted a house within the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s2(1). Claimant non-resident leaseholder (H) served notice on the defendant landlord (B) under the Act to exercise its right to acquire the freehold of a property consisting of retail ground floor and residential upper floor accommodation. The question arose as to whether the property was a house according to s2(1) of the Act. H relied on the definition in "Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeon's Homes" ([1982] 2 EGLR 73). B contended that the property was not a house on the grounds that it was purpose-built, separated accommodation in a commercial setting with a non-resident leaseholder. "Held": claim allowed. Mixed residential and retail premises could by law constitute a house within s2(1) of the Act depending on the character of the premises at the time of the tenant's enfranchisement notice. "Tandon" applied. In this case a reasonable man, having read the definition of house in the Act and the "Tandon" judgment and knowing that the residence requirement for enfranchisement had been removed by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, would say the property was a house within the 1967 Act.
590			_aIKA210605
650			_aHAREFORD LTD V BARNET LBC
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967 S2(1)
650			_aTANDON V TRUSTEES OF SPURGEONS HOMES
650			_aCOMMONHOLD AND LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 2002
690			_aLandlord and tenant _96252
942			_n0
999			_c75428 _d75428