Nathaniel Duckworth & Daniel Robinson on how to sidestep potential pitfalls in enfranchisement claims.
As all enfranchisement practitioners are aware, the legislation contains numerous potential traps for the unwary. The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) is littered with time limits which are often expressed in a convoluted way and the validity of notices is determined by arbitrary rules, such as the requirement for a notice to be signed by the tenant personally and not on his behalf.
Practitioners will also be aware of the common practice of serving successive notices under LRHUDA 1993, or withdrawing one notice and serving another at a later date. There are a myriad of reasons why this may be done. It may be that the validity of a notice has been disputed by the landlord and the tenant therefore serves a second notice that remedies the alleged defect but which is served without prejudice to the validity of the first notice. It may be that the tenant no longer wishes to proceed with an enfranchisement claim because he can no longer afford to
