Long lease — Compulsory acquisition — Dwelling-house — Effect of Leasehold Reform Act 1967 — No enfranchisement notice served on landlord before notice to treat — Preliminary point of law — Whether compensation should reflect rights of enfranchisement — Whether Pointe Gourde principle applicable — Claimant’s submission dismissed
The claimant acquired by assignment in September 1973 a 99-year lease of a dwelling-house at 5 George Arthur Road, Saltley, Birmingham. The lease was granted in March 1877 at a rent of £8 pa. The respondent acquiring authority, acting under a confirmed compulsory purchase order, served a notice to treat on both the claimant and the freeholder on December 14 1979 and took possession pursuant to a notice of entry on January 14 1980.
For the purposes of this reference to the tribunal, the parties agreed that: the claimant continued to reside in the dwelling-house from September 1973 to January 1980; the claimant’s interest under the lease was the tenancy of a house let at a low rent for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967; the freeholder at no time took any step to terminate the claimant’s tenancy after the lease expired in 1976; and the claimant at no time gave notice to the freeholder of a claim to acquire the freehold under the Act. The preliminary issue for the tribunal’s decision was whether the claimant owned a compensatable interest at the time of acquisition and whether his rights (if any) under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 should be taken into account in assessing compensation for such an interest.
Held When the claimant held over after the expiration of the long lease in 1976, a tenancy from year to year arose protected by Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. By section 4 of the 1954 Act, that tenancy was terminable upon six months’ notice given by the freeholder. Had such notice been given, the claimant would have been entitled to serve a counternotice and could have claimed enfranchisement under the 1967 Act. In the absence of the notice to enfranchise, the claimant’s interest was no more than as a tenant from year to year compensatable under section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.
Under section 5(6) of the 1967 Act the claimant lost the right to serve a notice to enfranchise upon service of the notice to treat. The Pointe Gourde principle had no application as it applies only to a situation where the value of an interest is depressed or increased by the impact of the underlying scheme of acquisition. The right to enfranchise is a personal right and not an interest in land for compensation purposes.
Johnson v Sheffield City Council
(1982) 43 P & CR 272 followed.
Harry Sales (instructed by Bean McDonald, of Birmingham) appeared for the claimant; and Ian Dove (instructed by the solicitor to Birmingham City District Council) appeared for the respondent.