Compulsory purchase – Compensation – Limitation period – General vesting declaration and notice sent to applicant – Property subsequently vesting in respondent acquiring authority – Whether compensation claim referred to Lands Tribunal within six years of date upon which applicant first knew of vesting – Whether general vesting declaration and notice informing applicant of that matter – Preliminary issue determined in favour of applicant
By a compulsory purchase order made in 2000 and confirmed in 2001, the respondent council acquired three houses owned by the applicant. A general vesting declaration, under section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, was made in respect of the properties in July 2001. Later that month, the respondents wrote to the applicant, enclosing the vesting declaration and a notice in the form prescribed by the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Vesting Declarations) Regulations 1999, specifying the land affected and setting out the effect of the declaration. The properties vested in the respondents in August.
The applicant did not refer his claim for compensation to the Lands Tribunal until October 2007. The respondents contended that the claim was time-barred under section 19(3) of the 1981 Act, by virtue of which the claim had to be referred within six years of the date upon which the applicant first knew, or could reasonably be expected to have known, of the vesting of his interest. They submitted that the applicant had known of the vesting by the July letter and a further letter that they had on their files, dated 30 August 2001 and addressed to him, in which they confirmed that the vesting had taken place. The applicant submitted that the July letter had not informed him that the vesting had taken place but had given him a last chance to dispute the proposed vesting; he denied having received the August letter.
He further contended that treating the claim as statue-barred would represent an unjustifiable and disproportionate interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. The limitation point was determined as a preliminary issue.
Decision: The preliminary issue was determined in favour of the applicant.
The applicant’s claim was not time-barred. The effect of the general vesting declaration was not to vest the property in the respondents at a specific date, but to provide for vesting 28 days, or longer, after the service of notices on any occupiers of the properties as required by section 6 of the 1981 Act. The recipient could not have known when his interest would vest in the respondents, since the vesting was dependent upon the service of the section 6 notices. Accordingly, the applicant could not be said to have known of the vesting by virtue of having received the declaration and accompanying notice in July 2001. There was no evidence to show that the August letter had been either sent to or received by the applicant. Consequently, the respondents had failed to show that the applicant had known or ought to have known of the vesting of the property by that date.
Although the point did not arise in the light of the above, there was no obvious basis for the argument that the respondents’ reliance upon limitation was made unlawful by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Simon Pickles (instructed by ELS & Cole, of Rayleigh) appeared for the applicant; Martin Edwards (instructed by the legal department of Rochford District Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sally Dobson, barrister