Contested Enfranchisement

Collective enfranchisement is the right for a group of flat tenants with long leases to act together to buy the freehold of their building on terms prescribed by the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993).

A collective enfranchisement claim is commenced by the service of an initial notice by the participating tenants on the reversioner, who is usually the freeholder.

Once the claim is made, the freeholder must serve a counter-notice. A freeholder wishing to contest a claim for collective enfranchisement must do either of the following in the counter-notice:

  • Not admit the tenants’ claim on the grounds that the tenants do not meet the qualifying criteria; or
  • Oppose the tenants’ claim on redevelopment grounds.

We can act on behalf of freeholders wishing to dispute the tenants’ right to bring a collective enfranchisement claim.

When can a freeholder not admit a collective enfranchisement claim?

If a freeholder does not admit the tenants’ right to collective enfranchisement, it must give reasons in the counter-notice. This will involve explaining why the tenants do not meet the qualifying criteria under LRHUDA 1993.

Upon service of the counter-notice, the tenants will have 2 months to apply to court for a declaration that it was entitled to bring the enfranchisement claim.

If the court dismisses the tenants’ application, the initial notice will cease. However, this does not prevent the tenants’ ability to serve a further notice if they satisfy the relevant qualifying criteria.

We can act on behalf of a freeholder wishing to defend a collective enfranchisement, including preparing and serving the counter-notice on the tenants.

When can a freeholder or landlord oppose the tenants’ claim on the grounds of redevelopment?

A freeholder can either admit or not admit the tenant’s right to bring the claim but oppose it on the grounds that either the freeholder or another relevant landlord proposes to redevelop the premises.

Within two months of service of the counter-notice, the freeholder and/or any intermediate landlord may apply for a court order that there is no right to enfranchise on redevelopment grounds.

The court may not make an order unless both of the following conditions are met:

  • At least two-thirds of the long leases are due to terminate within five years of the date of service of the initial notice;
  • The court is satisfied that, once those leases have come to an end, the applicant intends to demolish, reconstruct or carry out substantial works to the premises, and it could not do so without obtaining possession of the flats under the leases.

However, as the tenant of a flat under a long lease has the right to a new lease under section 42 of the LRHUDA 1993, it is often difficult to satisfy the first condition.

We can represent landlords wishing to oppose enfranchisement on redevelopment grounds, including providing expert legal advice on your particular case.

We’re with you, every step of the way.

We’re here to guide you through the intricacies of litigation, resolve disputes efficiently, and help you achieve your outcome.


Our team is composed of dedicated and accomplished legal professionals, each bringing their unique expertise to the table.

Mustafa Kalaycı
Mustafa Kalaycı
The most honest, hardworking, and fully professional law firm I have encountered or worked with. Despite speaking different languages, they effectively understand you through their interpreters, find the best advisors to assist you, and acquire the necessary information. They create a friendly, family-like atmosphere with a straightforward approach, particularly in litigation expertise. My gratitude goes to all the staff involved, especially James Naylor and Jenny Cheung, for their dedication. Thanks for everything. Mustafa KALAYCI
I used Naylor Solicitors to help us purchase our freehold. It wasn't as straightforward as we'd hoped as the previous freeholder and his solicitors were difficult to deal with (not responding to calls or emails etc,) which delayed things. At one point the freeholder threatened to pull out of the sale despite previously agreeing. Our solicitor Adam was swift in his response, reminding the other side that we had a verbal agreement and that they were risking us taking legal action in that regard. He was then able to make sure the sale went through as agreed. I highly recommend Naylor Solicitors.
Simon Grey
Simon Grey
We found Naylors after talking to a few solicitors and they sounded the most knowledgeable. They helped us with a neighbour dispute. Dominika was fabulous throughout, and we were able to resolve a long standing issue. We would like to thank Dominika for all her help and support.
Simon Hill
Simon Hill
I was the main client contact of 60+ objectors on a breach of restrictive covenants case in Hertfordshire lasting several years. Naylors had been recommended by our QC and were superb throughout. We won the case convincingly. Would certainly recommend them.
Farook Paracha
Farook Paracha
Dedicated and professional firm with the Clients interest at the forefront. Clear and unambiguous advice for a complicated legal matter expanding over several months. Naylor’s agreed to represent us clients at a time when we had completely lost all hope from keeping our property safe from forfeiture. We couldn’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. Despite this we always felt confident and in control with the quality of advice and our legal cost. I would definitely recommend Naylor’s LLP to everyone I know. Special thanks to Dominika, Nikki & Jasper. Regards Farook Paracha
Frazer A-F
Frazer A-F
We have been dealing with with Dominika Libova at Naylors for the past year on a dispute, we have been really pleased with the service she has provided. Dominika was approachable, friendly, professional and knowledgable, supporting us every step of the way. Fees were agreed in advance at every stage and where honoured, even reducing fees on a couple of occasions to meet the estimates. I would highly recommend Dominika and the Naylor's team.
Yannick Schindler
Yannick Schindler
Dominika and her firm recently secured a good outcome for me in a property dispute and I highly recommend her. Whenever I spoke with Dominika on the phone, it was very clear to me that she had considered the matter very carefully and I was impressed with her attention to detail. I particularly valued her ability to respond very quickly and pragmatically to new, and sometimes unexpected, developments during litigation. She was also very skilled at developing strategies before and during litigation to achieve desired results while keeping costs low. Dominika made the impression of being a very adept and motivated litigator and throughout the entirety of the matter I was very, very happy to have her in my corner.
claire bryant
claire bryant
From start to end our experience of Naylor solicitors and Dominkia in particular, was faultless. They are a very professional firm. Dominika was incredibly knowledgeable in this specialist area we sought advice in (ROL), listened and acted upon our wishes, but also was very helpful in guiding us in taking the right course of action. Communication was always timely without any delay and she always made the time to explain matters that we needed extra clarification over. I highly recommend.