[2025] UKUT 00324 (LC)

Mr Uzor submitted on behalf of the respondent that in determining figures at a relativity of 81.85%, 7.48% above the Zucconi rate of 74.37%, the FTT was within “the accepted margin of tolerance for valuations generally”. He made the point that the FTT is not bound by the relativity shown in graphs and is entitled to prefer market evidence.

Mr Uzor disputed that the sales of Flats 1F and 1H provided the best evidence. Both had been refurbished and one was on a different floor. He contended that four out of six pieces of evidence – of which three are disputed by the appellant – were less likely to be out of kilter with the market than the two out of six which had been “cherry-picked” to support the appellant’s objective of a higher premium.

Regarding Flat 12F, he contended that it should be considered because the sale took place less than three months after the valuation date and the price could be adjusted for the different floor and lack of lift. Its size, at 1,624 sq ft, was 12.8% larger than the Property, which was not “considerably larger” as claimed by the appellant.

Again, for Flat 9G, Mr Uzor submitted that its size at 1,634 sq ft, or 13.5% larger than the property, did not make it “considerably larger”. It sold four months after the valuation date and is on the second floor, in modernised condition, so the price requires few adjustments. The fact that Flats 12F and 9G sold for similar prices (time adjusted) supports their inclusion. He suggested it was disingenuous for the appellant to suggest that the market is “wrong” and their expert is right. Even if the housing crisis does not adequately explain why the market should pay less (£ psf) for an extended lease than a short lease, the appellant had failed to offer any alternative explanation. When the FTT commented that “It could also be that … buyers are more aware of their ability to extend leases and accordingly the shorter lease is of a lesser concern to them now and are willing to pay more to have the opportunity to extend the lease in the future.” it was referring to an opportunity to extend the lease outside of the remit of the Act, by way of amicable negotiation.

Regarding Flat 4C the respondent supported the FTT in rejecting Mr Sharp’s analysis of the evidence of the price paid for the agreed extension in 2020 to dispute Mr Cooper’s analysis of the sale.