10 March 2010
March 2010
PRESS RELEASE
Half of the specialists in leasehold enfranchisement don’t know two important principles regarding the operation of Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (LVT), an interactive conference has revealed.
The Spring Conference of the Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners asked delegates whether the LVT could re-open a decision if factual errors were revealed in the original submissions. Over half (56 of 111 respondents) incorrectly believed it could not.
In a separate question delegates were asked whether the LVT could dismiss an application as a result of failure of any of the parties to comply with directions. In this instance 62 incorrectly thought it could be dismissed and 58 thought it could not.
The wireless voting handsets used by the 138 delegates at the conference enabled respondents to vote anonymously to questions from the floor. The speaker Siobhan McGrath, Senior President of the Residential Property Tribunal Service, outlined the inner workings of the LVTs under her auspices at the conference.
Alex Greenslade, Honorary Secretary of ALEP, commented “Enfranchisement is a complex area of property law and it is not surprising that even the experts are not always certain over the details. This is why ALEP was created. The audience was half members and half non-members and I am confident that vetted members are more likely to know the correct answers to important issues related to lease extensions, freehold acquisitions and Right to Manage than solicitors, surveyors, intermediaries and property managers who are not members or who do not attend these presentations.”
Siobhan explained that the “slip rule” takes into account that sometimes factual errors are presented to an LVT that could have materially affected its decision. The can re-open the LVT to help make that correction but they cannot simply re-open it to make possibly a different decision, simply because the parties were not satisfied with the decision. That is where the Lands Tribunal comes in.
She also mourned in a mock fashion the LVTs’ inability sometimes to dismiss applications that did not comply with directions: “I wish we could, but we have limited powers to dismiss”, she explained. However, if the application is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process, the LVT would not hesitate to drop the application.
The other of the two keynote speakers was Anthony Radevsky, barrister at Falcon Chambers who acted in Boss Holdings v Grosvenor West End Properties, a matter dealing with the legal definition of the word “house” in a property context. Radevsky concentrated on the controversial Kelton Court case that undermines the pivotal Sportelli rulings governing how enfranchisements are valued.
The conference included two syndicates where delegates discussed whether the Kelton Court case would reverse the Sportelli rulings for leasehold property outside central London. The other syndicate examined the costs in Section 60 and Section 33 cases, agreeing what was an acceptable scale of charges.
Notes to editors
Alex Greenslade is available for interview. Pictures of the speakers and conference are available.
Presentations from the keynote speakers are available including the results of the voting.
Detailed feedback notes from the two syndicate sessions are available.
More information is available at www.alep.org.uk
