Enfranchisement: the meaning of “house” has been confirmed …

  • October 13, 2012
  • By Hunters Law

The Supreme Court has given comfort to freeholders by confirming that tenants do not have the right to enfranchise their leasehold interests where the property is used only for commercial purposes.

Some months ago the Court of Appeal had given some commercial tenants hope that they had the right to “enfranchise” (i.e. acquire the Landlord’s freehold). This hope had arisen because, even though the leases were plainly commercial, the let building had originally been a house and, under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the leaseholders of “houses” have the right to enfranchise as long as they satisfy various other conditions.

Last week the Supreme Court heard two appeals against that decision, brought by two of London’s largest landed estates the Day Estate and the Howard De Walden Estate (Day v Hosebay Limited; Howard de Walden Estates Limited v Lexgorge Limited [2012] UKSC 41).

The Estates’ argument was persuasive: in brief, the 1967 Act was not intended to allow businesses to buy their landlord’s freeholds; it was intended to allow householders to buy their landlord’s freeholds.

Section 2(1) of the 1967 Act defines a “house” as “any building designed or adapted for living in and reasonably so called”.  The Supreme Court has held that both parts of this definition need to be satisfied. That whilst the first part looked at the purpose of the building based upon its physical characteristics or architecture, the second part linked the definition to the primary function of the “house” – ie as a single residence and not, say, a block of flats, hotel or professional practice, at the date that the claim is made.  The fact that the building was originally designed as a house or was used as a house at the time the lease was originally granted will be irrelevant.

These decisions provide clarity for clients pursuing, or resisting, enfranchisement claims as it is now clear that properties that are being used solely for commercial purposes will not fall within the scope of the 1967 Act.

If you would like any further information on leasehold enfranchisement, please contact a member of our Residential Property team.

Related News

Oct 19, 2022
James Letchford discusses the UK commercial property market in PropertyEU
May 12, 2022
Scott Battram outlines the legal aspects of buying a luxury property in Kizzi’s Luxury Properties
Mar 30, 2022
Henry Hood and James Vernor-Miles share their advice with unmarried couples co-owning (or buying) property together in Tatler’s Address Book
Nov 26, 2021
Jessica Harris discusses the government failing to provide business rates relief for those outside of the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors in Property Investor News
Oct 28, 2021
Jessica Harris discusses how the Autumn Budget fails to live up to expectations on business rates relief in Lawyer Monthly
Oct 04, 2021
James Letchford promoted to the firm’s partnership
Aug 27, 2021
James Letchford discusses his top tips for commercial tenants in Property Week
Aug 03, 2021
James Letchford discusses simplifying VAT on property
Jul 23, 2021
James Letchford discusses commercial properties and boundaries
Jul 13, 2021
James Letchford discusses the extension of certain temporary protections for commercial tenants

© Hunters Law LLP 2023 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure.

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)