Home Page > Property Law Library > Long leases > Enfranchisement > Qualifications

Home Page
Editorial Team

Enfranchisement proceedings
Terms of the transfer
Valuation (deferment rates and hope value)
Valuation (other points)

Current page


This page contains information on the following points:
  • Appropriate rate value where the property was originally two properties - Neville v Cowdray Trust Ltd
  • Qualifying tenant - Earl Cadogan v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd
  • Qualifying tenant - one flat held under two leases.
  • Low rent test - partial abolition by Housing and Regeneration Act 2008
  • Redevelopment exemption - Majorstake Ltd v Curtis
  • Residence requirement - abolition
  • Residence test - Cadogan v Search Guarantees plc
  • Resident landlord exception - Slamon v Planchon

Appropriate rateable value - two houses

Neville v Cowdray Trust Ltd
[2006] EWCA Civ 709


This case relates to the low rent test in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Where the property was originally two properties what is the appropriate rateable value? None or the sum of the two original properties? Answer: the sum of the two.


The tenant had been granted a lease in 1965 of two semi-detached cottages built in 1675. The lease contained a covenant requiring the tenant to convert the cottages into a single house. The conversion was carried out in 1966. The issue in the case was whether for the purposes of the low rent test of the 1967 Act the rent was less than 2/3rds of the rateable value of the premises on the appropriate day.

Before the lease was entered into in 1965, each of the two cottages had a separate rateable value of £21. The rent was £100. Taking the rateable value of the premises as the sum of the rateable values for the cottages the premises did not satisfy the low rent test. After the cottages were converted into a single dwelling house, it had a rateable value of £158. If one used that value it did satisfy the low rent test.

The tenant contended that the rateable value on the appropriate day was £158, the landlord that it was £42. The judge at first instance found that there was no applicable rateable value until the house was converted and thus found in favour of the tenant.

On appeal the landlord contended that the judge had erred in his decision and that the Rent Act 1977 s.25(1) applied to the question of the ascertainment of the rateable value of the property under s.4A of the 1967 Act and when the tenancy commenced t ... THIS IS AN EXTRACT OF THE FULL TEXT. TO GET THE FULL TEXT, SEE BELOW

Existing members, to login click => here
If you have found this page useful, you may be interested in the following:

Free Summaries £nil
Full Membership From £207 + VAT (1 year)