Leasehold enfranchisement

The term 'leasehold enfranchisement' includes rights to:

  1. extend a residential lease, and

  2. acquire the freehold

The purpose of those rights is to enable tenants to continue occupation of their residential property at a fair price and on fair terms. It also allows leaseholders to maintain capital value and the ability to mortgage.

Mortgage lenders look unfavourably on leases with less than 70 years left to run.

The exercise of any of the rights below involves detailed procedures. Strict deadlines apply for the service of notices and counter-notices and subsequent steps in the process. Even if a right is admitted, a claim may lapse if time limits are overlooked. Although often referred to generically as 'leasehold enfranchisement', the qualifying criteria, forms of notice and time limits for each right are different, and it is essential before initiating any of the procedures to ensure that each successive step is mapped out and understood.

The valuation process for freehold acquisitions and lease extensions is also complex. Again, the detailed rules for each right are different and specialist advice should be obtained before launching

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents