Tenant of corroded ‘prefab’ cleared by council held entitled to home loss payment under section 29, Land Compensation Act 1973–Position the same in principle as if the tenant had been rehoused on clearance of an unfit brickbuilt property
This was an
application by Mr Alexander McLean, of Arran Way, Corby, Northamptonshire,
stated to be made in the interests of Lodge Park Tenants’ Association, for an
order of mandamus directing the respondents, Corby District Council, to assess
and make a home loss payment under the Land Compensation Act 1973 in respect of
the clearance of the applicant’s former home, a prefabricated bungalow in
Wensleydale Road, Corby.
Mr S J G Lloyd
(instructed by Riders, agents for Lamb & Holmes, of Corby) appeared for the
applicant, and Mr B Knight (instructed by Wilson & Wilson, of Corby)
represented the respondents.
Giving
judgment, LORD WIDGERY said that section 29 of the Land Compensation Act 1973
was a relatively new statutory provision whose purpose was to provide more
adequate compensation for unfortunate people who were displaced from their
homes for one reason or another. The applicant’s home was an aluminium bungalow
built just after the second world war on land bought by the then Corby Urban
District Council. The council built about 250 of the bungalows, which were laid
out in three areas in Corby and originally designed to be permanent dwellings.
Unhappily such prefabricated bungalows did not have the expected length of
life. As early as 1950 the government department concerned expressed doubts
about their future, and local authorities were circulated and advised to check
on corrosion. In 1969 the Corby council made the first positive plans to deal
with the bungalows. It was clear that by then many of the bungalows in Corby
had reached the stage of being unfit. The council decided to pull down the
bungalows and build more conventional homes on the site. On the face of the
matter, the decision was a perfectly straightforward one involving removal of
unfit housing, and the only novel feature was that the reason for the unfitness
was corrosion of the aluminium structure, from which of course a brickbuilt
house would not have suffered. Mr McLean was rehoused by the council in January
1973, and he claimed he was entitled to a home loss payment. The Act was not
passed until May 1973, but it was retrospective to October 1972. If he came
within its terms, then it followed that he was entitled to payment.
He (his
Lordship) thought that section 29 contemplated three broad grounds of
qualification for payment. The first ground covered people whose homes had been
compulsorily purchased, for example somebody whose home was acquired by a local
authority so that the land could be used for road-widening. The second covered
tenants in private properties which a local authority considered unfit for
human habitation. In that case, where the local authority demolished the
property the tenant was eligible for a home loss payment. The third ground
covered the situation where a local authority wanted to redevelop land which
would lead to local authority tenants being displaced. They would then be
entitled to compensation. Mr Knight contended that the language of the section
nevertheless contemplated a causal connection between the displacement of the
tenant and the factor causing the displacement. Here Mr McLean was displaced
not because of any redevelopment need, but simply because his bungalow proved
unfit. The argument was an interesting one, but he (Lord Widgery) did not think
it stood much consideration. There was no distinction in principle between a
private tenant who was evicted because his home was judged unfit and a local
authority tenant who had to give up his home because it was unfit. This was a
case where redevelopment of the land where the applicant lived was accelerated
by the corrosion of the aluminium, but in principle, as stated, it was no
different from any other case where unfit housing was removed and replaced by
fit housing. The fact was that the applicant was displaced by redevelopment of
the land, on the footing, if necessary, that ‘redevelopment’ included the
initial demolition involved, and he was therefore entitled to compensation.
There should be an order of mandamus to the local authority requiring them to
assess a home loss payment.
BRIDGE and
EVELEIGH JJ agreed, and an order was made accordingly, with costs against the
council.
