Compulsory purchase – Compensation – Assessment – Acquiring authority referring issue of disputed compensation to Upper Tribunal in connection with compulsory purchase of claimant’s house – Determination of compensation for open market value of property – Whether claimant entitled to home loss payment under section 29 of Land Compensation Act 1973 – Whether entitled to basic loss payment under section 333E – Issues determined accordingly
The acquiring authority acquired the claimant’s freehold interest in a three-bedroom house in Hendon, London NW4, pursuant to a compulsory purchase order dated November 2009. The authority took possession of the property in January 2014, which was the valuation date for the purpose of assessing the compensation due to the claimant. At that date, the property was in a derelict condition, the interior had been stripped out and the floorboards and some doors and windows had been removed. There was an extant planning permission for an extension to the property to provide three further bedrooms, additional bathrooms and a single garage.
Following the claimant’s failure to respond to an earlier notice to treat, the authority themselves referred the question of disputed compensation to the Upper Tribunal under section 6 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. The claimant did not participate in those proceedings or serve any notice on the authority giving details of the compensation which she claimed.
The Upper Tribunal considered issues as to the valuation of the property and whether, in addition to the open market value of the property, the claimant was entitled to any “home loss payment” or a “basic loss payment”, under sections 29 or 33A of the Land Compensation Act 1973 respectively.
Held: The issues were determined accordingly.
(1) Based on the expert evidence provided by the acquiring authority, the open market value of the property at the valuation date was £650,000.
(2) The claimant was not entitled to a home loss payment under section 29 of the 1973 Act in the absence of any evidence that she was in occupation of the property throughout the period of one year ending with her date of displacement; moreover, since she was not in occupation at the date of displacement, she did not qualify for consideration for a discretionary payment under section 29(2).
(3) The tribunal was not able to award a basic loss payment in the present proceedings notwithstanding that the claimant qualified for such a payment under section 33 of the 1973 Act. Unlike a home loss payment, which was payable as of right on qualification and was not dependent on an application being made by the claimant, a basic loss payment required the claimant to apply in writing to the acquiring authority in accordance with section 33E. Since the claimant had not yet made any such application, no award of compensation for a basic loss payment could be made.
(4) However, it was not too late for the claimant to make an application under section 33E for a basic loss payment, which would be fixed at £48,750, namely 7.5% of the open market value of the property. There was nothing in the 1973 Act to prevent a claimant from making an application for a basic loss payment after the tribunal’s determination of the market value of the reference property, provided that such an application was made within the limitation period referred to in section 33E(4), which, in the instant case, was six years from the valuation date of January 2014.
The claimant did not appear and was not represented; Robin Green (instructed by HB Public Law) appeared for the acquiring authority.
Sally Dobson, barrister
To read a tramscript of Parmar v Barnet London Borough Council, click here
