The applicant tenant occupied property originally a pair of semi-detached derelict cottages and six acres of land. He successively reconstructed each cottage, initially living in one of them and sub-letting the other; constructed a five door garage building; and then obtained vacant possession of the sub-let cottage and opened up the dividing wall to make the two cottages one dwelling house. He applied to acquire the freehold of the house and premises under the 1967 Act. To succeed, he needed to show that his tenancy was at a low rent under the original section 4 of the Act. He could do this if his rent was compared with a rateable value which included the garages, but not if the rateable value of the garages was excluded.
Held: By virtue of section 4(1)(a) of the 1967 Act, the ‘appropriate day’ was to be determined under section 25(3) of the 1977 Act in relation to ‘the house in question’, i.e. the cottages excluding the garages. There was a clear difference between the provisions of section 1(1) of the 1967 Act entitling the tenant to purchase ‘the house and premises’, and those of section 4(1)(a), requiring the appropriate day to be determined in relation to a dwelling house ‘consisting of the house in question’. By section 4(1), the appropriate day was determined by reference to the first day on which the dwelling house as a single hereditament or as two or more hereditaments had first appeared in the valuation list. That was 6 February 1967, the first day on which the second of the two cottages had first appeared, separately from the first cottage, on the valuation list after its conversion. Lord Templeman: ‘[Counsel for Mr Dixon] also submitted that ‘the house’ did not come into existence until 1977 when the two cottages were converted into one house and that 1977 was, therefore, the appropriate day and that the house [presumably and premises] then consisted of three hereditaments comprised of the two cottages and the garages. But section 4(1)(a) of the Act of 1967, read in conjunction with section 25(1) of the Act of 1977, requires the appropriate day to be the day when ‘the house’, consisting of two cottages and no more, was first rated and that day was 6 February 1967. A tenant of two semi-detached houses, each rated at andpound;50 on 25 March 1965, could not by inserted communicating doors between the two houses and converting them into one house, rated in 1987 at andpound;150, alter the appropriate day or increase the rateable value for the purposes of the Act of 1967. In the present case, ‘the house’ created by the tenant in 1977 consisted of two hereditaments rated for the first time by 6 February 1967.
Citations:
[1987] 1 WLR 1689
Statutes:
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 25(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Neville v Cowdray Trust Ltd and Another CA 5-May-2006
The applicant claimed the right to purchase the freehold reversion for her home. The defendant said it was not held under a low rent so as to qualify, since the rent exceeded the rateable value as assessed. The rating list had been altered meantime . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.242427
