© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
A recent decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has resulted in Liverpool City Council being ordered to pay costs after it was found to have acted unreasonably in leasehold proceedings.
The case, Daroush Moghaddam Azari v Liverpool City Council (Case Reference: MAN/00BY/OAF/2023/0023), involved a dispute over the purchase price of a freehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The applicant, represented by Orme Associates Property Advisers, had sought to reach an agreement with the council over the price of the freehold for 106-108 Queens Drive, Liverpool, to avoid the need for formal proceedings. Despite multiple attempts to settle the matter, the council delayed negotiations for a significant period, leading to unnecessary costs for the applicant.
The tribunal found that Liverpool City Council had admitted the applicant’s entitlement to purchase the freehold as early as November 2021, yet failed to take meaningful action to agree on a purchase price until April 2024—well after proceedings had commenced in October 2023. Further, the agreed purchase price was ultimately the same amount that the applicant had offered in May 2024, which the council only accepted on the last day for submitting its statement of case.
Given the history of delays and lack of response from the council, the tribunal ruled that the council had acted unreasonably under Rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. As a result, it ordered Liverpool City Council to pay £859.50 towards the applicant’s legal costs and reimburse the £100 application fee, making a total award of £959.50. The tribunal directed that this sum be paid within 14 days of the decision date, 16th December 2024.
This ruling underscores the importance of timely engagement by public bodies in leasehold matters and highlights the potential financial consequences for landlords and managing agents who fail to act reasonably in negotiations. The case serves as a reminder to leaseholders that tribunals are willing to award costs in instances where unreasonable conduct causes unnecessary expenses.