The Enfranchisement Team at Nockolds recently acted for Mr & Mrs Murphy in relation to the lease of their flat in Ealing. The Murphys put their flat on the market in late 2022 but found that the length of time remaining on their lease was proving to be a stumbling block for potential buyers even though it had over 80 years left to run. Enlighted readers may recall that even this far back the Law Commission had already released its proposals on reform of this area of law, which had spooked many in the market.
Initially, the freeholder of the building in which the Murphys owned the flat indicated that he would be open to agreeing a voluntary lease, but it quickly became clear that he had no intention of doing so and was just wasting our clients’ time.
We advised the Murphys that a statutory notice (Notice) would be needed and this was prepared and served in May 2023.
In early August 2023 (and within the time limit specified in the statutory notice) the freeholder sent our clients a letter purporting to be a counter-notice in response to the Notice. Unfortunately, not only did this purported notice fail to confirm that the Murphys were entitled to an extended lease, amongst other errors, it also lacked details of the price that the freeholder would accept for such a lease!
We wrote very politely to the freeholder pointing out the error of his ways and asking him to agree to a lease on the terms of the Notice, failing which, our clients would make an application to the court for an order that the lease be granted on those terms.
As you might expect, the freeholder continued to prevaricate and waste the Murphys’ time and costs, purporting to agree to the lease terms but failing to sign the lease or instruct solicitors to deal with the formalities of completion.
In February 2024, stuck with a flat that they could not sell or re-mortgage and with increasing interest rates, the Murphys instructed us to make an application to the court to force the freeholder to complete the extended lease.
True to form, the freeholder failed to file an acknowledgement of service or engage with the court proceedings leading to huge frustration for the Murphys.
And as you may know, the County Court system is dealing with a huge backlog of cases, which meant that we did not hear from the Court until January 2025 with confirmation that the case had been listed for a hearing on 1st April (no this was not an April Fool’s joke).
Still the freeholder refused to engage with the court process, but all the while dangling the carrot of completing the extended lease, going as far as instructing solicitors, but not actually putting them in a position to progress completion of the lease.
In support of our clients’ claim to the extended lease and their claim against the freeholder for wasted costs, we prepared and submitted witness statements to the court setting out this sorry tale and the abominable behaviour of the freeholder.
Finally, the day before the hearing date arrived and the freeholder, (who had no intention of attending the hearing from Australia) agreed to complete the extended lease on the terms set out in the Notice.
However, we were not fooled by this tactic. The barrister that we had instructed for the Murphys, attended the hearing on their behalf and eloquently persuaded the court to award costs against the freeholder in an amount which far exceeded the lease premium set out in the Notice. This meant that on completion of the extended lease the freeholder had to make a payment to the Murphys!
Happily, completion of the extended lease took place without incident and the lease is now in the process of being registered at the Land Registry. Did the Murphys live happily ever after? We hope so, but in any event they’re Murphys, they’re not bitter!
If you need any advice on Enfranchisement please contact Lucy Riley in our Commercial Property Department.