England and Wales Lands Tribunal

[2001] EWLands LRA_13_2001 (29 November 2001)

LRA/13/2001

LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – legal costs incurred by landlord – absence of evidence to suggest LVT determination wrong – appeal dismissed – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1973, s. 33

IN THE MATTER of an APPEAL FROM A DECISION of the LEASEHOLD TRIBUNAL for the LONDON RENT ASSESSMENT PANEL

PETER ROMER Appellant

(No Respondent)

Re: 15 Crescent Road

Crouch End

London N8

Before: N J Rose FRICS

Sitting at : 48/49 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JR

on 14 November 2001

Appellant in person


 


DECISION

1. This is an appeal by Mr Peter Romer, the freeholder of a house known as 15 Crescent Road, Crouch End, London, N8 ("the appeal property") against a decision of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for the London Rent Assessment Panel ("the LVT"), determining Mr Romer's costs of enfranchisement recoverable under s.33 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 ("the Act") from 15 Crescent Road (N8) Limited, the nominee purchaser of the appeal property, at £3,593.75, including £1,200 conveyancing costs. Mr Romer appeared in person and gave evidence. The Registrar of the Tribunal has directed that the simplified procedure provided for in rule 28 of the Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 should apply to this appeal. There is no respondent to the appeal.
2. Mr Romer's case before the LVT was that his reasonable costs amounted to £9,575, including VAT, billed by Messrs Withers and Messrs Cramer Pelmont for work resulting from the enfranchisement notice and £1,468.75, including VAT, for conveyancing costs. He claimed similar costs at the hearing before me. His evidence here was confined to a summary of the various difficulties arising from the separate ownership of the appeal property and No.15a, which he will retain and upon which he has erected a dwelling house, part of which oversails the appeal property at first floor level. The inference of this evidence was that the amounts which had been billed for legal advice were justified. In answer to questions from me, however, it emerged that Withers had eventually been persuaded to reduce their charges, although Mr Romer professed not to remember the amount that had been agreed.
3. I pointed out that the onus was on Mr Romer to prove that the amount of costs determined by the LVT was wrong and that he could hardly be said to have discharged that onus if he withheld details of the costs that he had in fact paid to his solicitors. Since proceedings conducted in accordance with rule 28 are informal in nature I indicated that I was prepared to allow him a further seven days to supply the Tribunal with copies of his solicitors' receipted accounts.
4. Some of those documents have been provided and I summarise them as follows. Firstly, Withers submitted three accounts for legal services. The first was dated 3 April 1998 and totalled £6,619.95. It related to services provided between December 1997 and March 1998 "as per narrative attached", but a copy of that narrative was not supplied to the Tribunal. The second was dated 29 July 1998 and totalled £2,707.20. It related to legal services provided between 21 March 1998 and 20 July 1998. This invoice referred to an attached narrative, which has not been sent to the Tribunal either. The third invoice was also dated 29 July 1998 and was for £646.25 in respect of fees paid to counsel. In fact, these three accounts totalled £9,973.40.
5. Mr Romer also produced a letter dated 19 November 2001 from Norman Saville and & Co, solicitors, confirming that Withers had agreed to accept £7,150 in full settlement of their accounts in relation to the enfranchisement. It also indicated that Norman Saville & Co

"would propose to charge you £750 plus VAT in relation to dealing with Withers and a claim for costs in connection with the enfranchisement of 15 Crescent Road."

The amount of the latter claim was not quantified.

6. Finally, Mr Romer supplied a copy of Cramer Pelmont's invoice dated 19 May 2000. This totalled £1,136.25, but only half was claimed, since that bill, too, included work arising from the dispute with Withers. The narrative relating to the balance read as follows:

"Further matters appertaining to the transfer of the freehold involving Jennifer Israel (solicitors for the nominee purchaser); having a number of meetings with you concerning the title…"

7. S33(1) of the Act renders the nominee purchaser liable

"to the extent that they have been incurred in pursuance of the notice by the reversioner or by any other relevant landlord, for the reasonable costs of and incidental to any of the following matters, namely –

(a) any investigation reasonably undertaken –

(i) of the question whether any interest in the specified premises or other property is liable to acquisition in pursuance of the initial notice, or

(ii) of any other question arising out of that notice;

(b) deducing, evidencing and verifying the title to any such interest;

(c) making out and furnishing such abstracts and copies as the nominee purchaser may require;

(d) any valuation of any interest in the specified premises or other property;

(e) any conveyance of any such interest …"

8. Mr Romer suggested that he dispensed with Withers' services because of the delay and because they did not achieve anything and he disinstructed Cramer Pelmont because they "could not handle the matter". I do not know whether those criticisms are justified, but if they are then those firms' charges are unlikely to have been reasonable. Moreover, in the absence of the narratives accompanying Withers' invoices, or any other explanation from that firm of how the amounts charged have been calculated, it is not possible to draw a proper conclusion as to whether the work they charged for was restricted to the matters specified in s33(1), nor whether the sums charged were reasonable. Mr Romer has therefore failed to prove that the amount awarded by the LVT for legal costs (excluding conveyancing) was wrong.
9. The only evidence to support Mr Romer's claim for conveyancing charges is a letter from Norman Saville & Co, advising him to put forward a figure of £2,000 plus VAT. That letter included the following sentence:

"As you know, negotiations have been continuing and the Claimants have now issued proceedings in relation to that conveyancing which has increased the price."

10. In my view the costs of conveyancing which are to be paid under s33(1) do not extend to negotiations or litigation. Accordingly, Mr Romer has produced no evidence to show that the amount of conveyancing costs should be more than £1,200 and, therefore, that element of his appeal also fails.
11. I find that the costs payable to Mr Romer by the nominee purchaser under s33 total £3,593.75. I make no order as to the costs of this appeal.

Dated: 29 November 2001

(Signed) N J Rose