Walker v Blackburn With Darwen Borough Council [2014] UKUT 0421 (LC)

IN THE MATTER of A NOTICE OF REFERENCE
UT Neutral citation number: [2014] UKUT 421 (LC)Venue BETWEEN ADRIAN ALLEN WALKER Claimant, and, BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN BOROUGH COUNCIL Acquiring Authority, Re: 8 Redearth Street, Darwen, Lancashire, BB3 2AG, Before: P D McCrea FRICS, Sitting at: Manchester IAC, 1 st Floor, Piccadilly Exchange,, Manchester, M1 4AH, on, Mr Allen Walker for the claimant, Anthony Gill , instructed by the solicitors to Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council for the acquiring authority, DECISION, Introduction
Between
WalkerBlackburn With Darwen Borough Council
Date 5 August 2014
[1]This is a reference, heard under the Tribunal’s simplified procedure, to determine the compensation payable to Mr Adrian Allen Walker (“the claimant”) arising from the compulsory acquisition by Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council (“the acquiring authority”) of a house which was known as 8 Redearth Street, Darwen, Lancashire, BB3 2AG (“the subject property”). It was acquired under the Blackburn with Darwen (Darwen Academy) No 3 Compulsory Purchase Order (“the CPO”) which was made on 24 October 2006 and confirmed by the Secretary of State on 3 October 2007.[2]Following confirmation of the CPO, a Notice to Treat and Notice of Entry were served on the claimant on 11 October 2007. The acquiring authority obtained a warrant for possession that was executed on 28 March 2008, which is the valuation date for the purposes of this reference.[3]The claimant submitted the notice of reference on 25 March 2014, gave evidence and was represented at the hearing by his father, Mr Allen Walker, who also gave evidence. For convenience, I will refer to Mr Adrian Walker as the claimant, and to his father as Mr Walker. Mr Anthony Gill of Counsel appeared for the acquiring authority and called Mr Trevor James, principal surveyor of Capita, who gave expert valuation evidence. Capita is the acquiring authority’s retained agent.[4]Following the hearing I permitted the claimant to provide details of his claim for disturbance, with supporting documents, to which the acquiring authority could respond. I duly received the parties’ submissions. Facts[5]From the evidence, I find the following facts. The subject property, which has since been demolished, was located in an area of Darwen known as the Redearth triangle. It was a two-storey inner terraced dwelling house of stone and brick construction under a pitched slate roof, benefiting from full double glazing and central heating. Following the boundaries of the plot, the building was irregularly shaped. On the ground floor it comprised interconnecting living and dining rooms with a fully fitted kitchen to the rear. On the first floor there were three bedrooms, one having borrowed light, together with a fitted bathroom. There was a full height basement under the front part of the property. To the rear there was a yard area and to the front the property was set back from the highway behind a small front garden. The gross internal area, excluding the basement, was 118 m² or thereabouts.[6]The claimant purchased the subject property in late 2000. He carried out significant refurbishment including extensive repairs to the roof, replacing most of the woodwork, replacing all windows and doors, re-plastering walls and ceilings, replacing flooring, rewiring and re-plumbing, installing a new kitchen and bathroom, and sandblasting the exterior.[7]The majority of the house was held long leasehold for a term of 999 years from 1 May 1846, at an apportioned rent of £2.00 per annum. A culvert ran beneath this element of the house. The rear yard, and a very small element of the house, was owned freehold. The parties have agreed that in value terms nothing turns on the fact that the property was held, in the majority, long leasehold.[8]The CPO was made for the purposes of acquiring various plots of land to facilitate the construction of the Darwen Academy, covering approximately 2.175 ha (5.37 acres) or thereabouts.[9]The CPO site had a somewhat troubled history. A previous CPO had been revoked and the subject CPO was subject to an unsuccessful legal challenge in the High Court. Acquisition negotiations took place over an extended timescale. In an attempt to reach agreement, the acquiring authority referred the subject property, along with five others, to a non-binding independent review by Mr Richard Fine of the District Valuer’s office (“the DV”). Mr Richard Bracey, then of Capita, made a submission to the DV on behalf of the acquiring authority, and Mr John Brownlow, a chartered surveyor of the firm Edwards Genesis, submitted on behalf of the claimant and others. At that time, Mr Bracey’s opinion of market value for the subject property at the valuation date was £96,500. Mr Brownlow’s was £110,000. The DV, in a report dated 24 April 2009, decided that the market value was £97,500. The acquiring authority offered to settle at that figure, but this was rejected by the claimant, who claims a figure of £110,000 for the long leasehold and freehold interests in the subject property, plus a home loss payment of 10%, statutory interest and disturbance. Legal Framework[10]In respect of compensation payable for land taken, s.5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (“the Act”) provides that:
“Compensation in respect of any compulsory acquisition shall be assessed in accordance with the following rules: …. (2) The value of land shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be taken to be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise. …. (6) The provisions of rule (2) shall not affect the assessment of compensation for disturbance or any other matter not directly based on the value of land.”
Issues[11]The issues between the parties are the value of the freehold and long leasehold interests in the subject property at the valuation date, assessed under the provisions of section 5, rule (2) and the disturbance compensation arising in accordance with rule (6). Evidence - Value[12]The written evidence on behalf of the claimant comprised a witness statement from him, a witness statement from Mr Walker, various appendices including a copy of Mr Brownlow’s submission to the DV dated 11 March 2009 and the DV’s report of 24 April 2009. Both the claimant and Mr Walker gave oral evidence but neither Mr Brownlow nor the DV was produced as a witness.[13]Much of the content of the witness statements of the claimant and Mr Walker related to the fairly unhappy history of this dispute including descriptions of the previous CPO’s and a narrative of the various negotiations that had taken place with the acquiring authority. In so far as relevant to the matters which I must decide, the evidence for the claimant was as follows.[14]When Mr Bracey inspected the subject property on 11 March 2008 he noted that the property was in “excellent condition”. However in his submission to the DV, the property had been downgraded by him to “very good”, a description that the DV then adopted for valuation purposes –the DV could not inspect the appeal property as it had by then been demolished.[15]Mr Walker submitted that the DV’s figures were inconsistent, in that 4 Sunnybank Street, described as being in “very poor condition”, without central heating, was valued at £870 per sqm, 2 Redearth Street (“good condition”) was valued at £867 per sqm, whereas the subject property (“very good condition” but should have been “excellent”) was only valued at £825 per sqm. The DV referred to the Council as his clients, and used the phrase “doing the best I can” when providing his assessment of value, indicating a desire to minimise the valuation. Mr Walker considered that the DV was biased towards the acquiring authority, and his figures were therefore not truly independent.[16]In his submission to the DV, Mr Brownlow had referred to the compensation settlement by him of 6 Franklin Street, at £84,000. It was in poor condition, required some structural work, and was smaller than the subject property.[17]Mr Brownlow’s report included comparables, which Mr Walker said related more to the five other properties that were the subject of the DV’s independent review, and had little relevance to the subject property.[18]In contrast, Mr Walker, accepting that he had no expertise in valuation, referred to the sale of various terraced properties, the prices of which had been confirmed by the Land Registry and which he considered were more comparable to the subject property. These were: 10 Ellesmere Road, Darwen 14 March 2008 £107,495 2 bedroomed, gas central heating, partial double glazing, wooden attic room. 8 Ellesmere Road, Darwen 21 April 2006 £97,500 2 bedroomed, not double glazed, smaller than subject property, no mention of heating. 103 Greenway Street, Darwen 2 April 2008 £125,000 3 bedroomed, no further detail, smaller than subject property. 31 Durham Road, Darwen 25 April 2008 £115,000 2 bedroomed, similar sized front garden, smaller than subject property, no further details 85 Greenbank Terrace, Lower Darwen 2 May 2008 £98,000 2 bedroomed, double glazing, central heating, fitted kitchen, smaller than subject property 8 Empress Street, Lower Darwen 7 May 2008 £95,000 2 bedroomed, only partial double glazing, gas central heating, new kitchen and bathroom, much smaller than subject property 51 Cemetery Road, Darwen 22 May 2008 £113,000 2 bedroomed, similar kitchen, bathroom not as good, smaller overall and on main trunk road 125 Cemetery Road, Darwen 6 June 2008 £116,300 2 bedroomed, good kitchen, double glazed, modern bathroom & shower, 2 wc’s, pavement fronted, on main trunk road 95 Cemetery Road, Darwen 14 March 2008 £95,000 2 bedroomed, pavement fronted, main road[19]Mr Walker considered that these comparables supported the claimant’s valuation at £110,000. He also referred to the claimant’s new property, 4 Inverness Road, Darwen. This was purchased in August 2008 at £105,000. The claimant’s evidence was that when he purchased 4 Inverness Road, it required total refurbishment. He had spent £18,000 so far, but the refurbishment was incomplete. The claimant was shown extracts from Rightmove, which appeared to show the property being in good condition, but considered these to be misleading as they only showed the basic decorative condition of the property. Problems were only subsequently discovered after he had purchased the property.[20]Mr Walker accepted that, with the exception of the appeal property, all of the properties valued by Mr Brownlow had subsequently been settled at the DV’s figure. These were: 2 Redearth Street (£91,000); 11 Redearth Street (£79,000 but see further below); 5 Lower Cross Street (£75,750); 15 Star Street (£74,000); and 4 Sunnybank Street (£60,000). He submitted that the owners of those properties were fed up with the whole process and simply wanted to settle – the implication being that they had settled below market value.[21]On behalf of the acquiring authority, Mr Trevor James submitted a witness statement and gave oral evidence. Mr James is a Principal Surveyor within the regeneration team of the Property Management and Development section of Capita (Blackburn). He has over 34 years’ experience in general practice surveying. For the last 22 years his main focus has been in compulsory purchase but he had had no previous involvement in the CPO.[22]In his expert report, Mr James provided a background to the CPO and a brief history of negotiations to date. He submitted that whilst the property had been described as “excellent” on Capita’s inspection notes, but “very good” in the submission to the DV, there was no intention to undervalue the property and indeed the latter description resulted in a higher valuation by the DV than that of the acquiring authority.[23]Upon being instructed in August 2004, his firm had sought to set the tone for future negotiations under the CPO by establishing a range of “beacon values” by undertaking a general review of the local housing market in conjunction with the review of compensation settlements already achieved within the Redearth triangle. These “beacon values” were based on the general condition/quality of a “two up two down” terraced house, adjusted to account for additional bedrooms, extensions, amenities etc. The exercise was not intended to be mathematical, but to provide the valuer with a consistent reference. It was carried out openly and two local agents were consulted.[24]The 2003 evidence was weighted in the following descending[25]Mr James was not involved prior to the property being demolished and had therefore not inspected it. In valuing the property he had had regard to his firm’s property inspection and valuation sheets and notes, photographs from March 2008, and comparable evidence.[26]His comparable evidence comprised settlement agreements within the Redearth triangle between March 2008 and July 2009, together with sale prices outside that area around the valuation date. The settlement evidence was as follows: 2 Redearth Street April 2008 105 sqm £91,000 Larger, 3 bedroomed, full central heating, full double glazing, attic room. Good condition. 5 Lower Cross Street July 2009 66 sqm £75,750 Pavement fronted, 2 bedroomed, end terrace, full double glazing, full central heating. Good condition. 15 Star Street July 2009 84 sqm £74,000 Pavement fronted, 3 bedroomed, mid-terrace, single storey extension, part double glazing. Fair condition. 11 Redearth Street March 2008 82 sqm £73,500 Pavement fronted, 2 bedroomed, mid-terrace, single storey extension, full double glazing. Good condition.[27]The settlement of 11 Redearth Street at £73,500 was at variance with Mr Walker’s acceptance of Mr Gill’s assertion that that sale had been at £79,000. I have proceeded on the basis that the acquisition was at £73,500 as in Mr James’s expert report.[28]Mr James considered that properties in the Redearth triangle had a ceiling value, and would only be worth more if they were in a better location. The evidence of transactions outside the Redearth triangle area at or around the date of valuation was; 1 St Albans Road, Darwen April 2008 £110,000 Large, garden-fronted, sought after area, 4 bedrooms, full double glazing and central heating 10 Ellesmere Road, Darwen March 2008 £107,495 Attractive, garden-fronted, popular area, very good condition, single storey kitchen extension, 3 bedrooms, full double glazing and central heating 4 Inverness Road, Darwen August 2008 £105,000 Large, attractive garden-fronted, mid-terraced, 3 bedrooms, full double glazing and central heating. Purchased by the claimant[29]Mr James has not particularly analysed the comparable transactions but considered that they fully supported his valuation of £97,500, particularly in view of the culverted watercourse that passed beneath the subject property and which may raise concerns from lenders or prospective purchasers – although his valuation disregarded this.[30]He considered the best settlement evidence to be that of 2 Redearth Street which although slightly smaller than the subject property had the benefit of an attic bedroom. After making adjustments to reflect these differences, the comparable supported his valuation.[31]Mr James considered that the market evidence from completed sales outside the area reflected the general housing market in Darwen. The properties were in sought after residential areas, were of a better house type/style, situated within terraces of better, well-maintained properties, and were in a better street environment. He said the three comparables referred to demonstrated the type of property that could have been purchased in the more sought after residential areas of the town at less than the claimant’s valuation of £110,000.[32]The transaction that stood out in particular was the claimant’s own purchase of 4 Inverness Road. This was a far superior house type to the subject property, situated in a popular residential area and appeared to have been in excellent condition throughout. The purchase price of £105,000 was £5,000 below the amount claimed for the subject property. In answer to a question from Mr Walker, Mr James accepted that the Rightmove photographs did not give an in depth view of the property’s condition.[33]Mr James also had regard to two properties that were on the market around the date of valuation. The first was 131 Redearth Road, available at £97,500 in March 2008, subsequently reduced to £89,995. This was a two bedroomed terraced house with garden frontage, gas central heating and double glazing. A further property on Redearth Road, which was three bedroomed with garden frontage, double glazing but no central heating, was available at £82,500 in May 2008.[34]Of Mr Walker’s comparables, Mr James considered that they had little relevance to the subject property, as they were in better locations some distance from the Redearth triangle. He did not agree that Darwen was an area with a generally similar level of value to the Redearth triangle, although the properties themselves might be similar.[35]As regards Mr Walker’s criticism of the DV’s figures, when broken down per square metre, Mr James considered that this method was appropriate for new-build properties, which had a degree of uniformity of condition and fixtures and fittings, but was misleading when applied to properties such as those in the Redearth triangle. However he accepted that there was no scientific reason why there was a discrepancy in respect of the rate per square metre.[36]He said that the settlement properties had been valued using comparable evidence, then by making adjustments for condition, whether the property had an outrigger, etc. In respect of his firm’s valuation sheet, Mr James said in response to a question from me that there was an error in that the range of addition allowed to reflect quality was 0 – 5%, rather than 0 – 15% shown on his sheet. The maximum amount of 5% had been adopted for the subject property to reflect its quality.[37]He accepted that the fact that the Council bricked up adjoining properties as part of the clearance area scheme may have had an effect on the value of the remaining properties.[38]In respect of Mr Brownlow’s settlement of 6 Franklin Street, Mr James estimated the repair costs of that property might be in the region of £20-25,000 including the repair of the failed gable end. He considered an adjustment of that property’s gross external to gross internal area would be in the region of 15%. Disturbance[39]Following the hearing, the claimant submitted a disturbance claim, which comprised the following:(1) Fixtures and fittings - £7,698.00. This was supported by a contractor’s quote in this amount, in respect of new flooring, floor coverings, carpets and blinds at the claimant’s new property. Mr Walker said that this was slightly smaller than the subject property, which had been fitted out on a similar basis in 2004.(2) Mileage expenses – £2,035.80. Following the acquisition the claimant was without accommodation in Darwen but had the opportunity to live rent-free in Wigan. The claim was in respect of taking the claimant’s daughter to school in Darwen between 28 March and 23 July 2008.(3) Rail fares - £72.20. This was in respect of a journey on 15 January 2008 to the High Court in an attempt to overturn the No2 CPO.(4) Cost of representation at public enquiries - £3,482.50. This was in respect of Mr Walker’s fees in representing the claimant at the public enquiries in relation to the No2 CPO and the CPO (No 3).[40]The acquiring authority’s response, adopting the same numbering, was:(1) This was a valid item of claim, but the more permanent types of floor covering, for example laminate, form part of the assessment of market value of a property, and had already been accounted for in the market value of the appeal property. In respect of carpeting, relying on its compensation code, the acquiring authority offered £450.00 to reflect the size of the property (in the majority of settlements, £350.00 had been agreed for floor coverings). This was based upon a loss of the in-situ carpets or refitting costs. Similar comments applied in respect of blinds, where the acquiring authority offered £250.00, compared with £100.00-£175.00 for the average property.(2) This claim was rejected, on the basis that it was too remote and the claimant had not mitigated his loss. The claimant would have had ample time to find accommodation closer to his daughter’s school, but chose instead to live rent free some distance away.(3) This claim was also rejected, on the basis that it did not fall within Rule 6, section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (“Rule 6”).(4) This claim was also rejected, first on the basis that it partly related to a previous CPO, and secondly so far as it related to the subject CPO, that it also did not fall within Rule 6.[41]The claimant submitted a further response, which re-emphasised the claim and referred to extracts from “The Law of Compulsory Purchase” (2 nd edition) by Mr Guy Roots and others. Discussion[42]Neither party submitted any evidence that values were anything other than static in the months before and after the valuation date, and I have assumed that to be the case. Nor was any issue taken about post-valuation date evidence.[43]I deal first with the discrepancies of fact between the parties. I do not consider that anything turns on the slightly varying descriptions of the subject property of being in “very good” and “excellent” condition. There is no dispute that the property was in very good order indeed.[44]In respect of the claimant’s property at Inverness Road, the purchase of which has been cited as a comparable, I accept the claimant’s contention that the property required refurbishment work, notwithstanding the lack of receipts for that work. I am not persuaded that the brief photographs from the Rightmove website are sufficient evidence to refute this. I accept his evidence.[45]I reject the criticism levelled at the DV and the impartiality of his report. There is no evidence of it being biased, and I read it as a genuine opinion of value from an independent Chartered Surveyor. It is quite normal for the DV to give an independent view, even if being paid by a local authority client, and the phrase “doing the best I can” does not to my mind show bias – indeed it is from time to time used by this Tribunal. I have therefore taken the DV’s report as an independent view, albeit from a Chartered Surveyor who had not inspected the subject property. However the DV was not produced as a witness and his opinion was therefore untested.[46]The only valuation evidence for the claimant, aside from Mr Walker’s comparables which I deal with below, was Mr Brownlow’s report. As Mr Brownlow was not produced as a witness, this was again untested. His report included a schedule, (amended by Capita with no evidence before me that Mr Brownlow disagreed with those amendments) which comprised some 32 comparables, only six were for sales at or in excess of £100,000. 62 Richmond Terrace, sold at £110,000, was a three bedroomed semi-detached house which was stated as being not comparable. There were two unconfirmed transactions within the Sunnyhurst/Lynwood area at £110,000 and one confirmed at £100,000, but Mr Brownlow considered that these locations were better than the Redearth triangle. Finally there were two in the Whitehall area, at £120,000 and £113,000, but again Mr Brownlow considered these to be in better locations.[47]A puzzling aspect of the claimant’s case was that it was submitted that I should place weight on Mr Brownlow’s opinion of value of the subject property, yet Mr Walker sought to depart from the comparable evidence that Mr Brownlow had used to arrive at his opinion. Mr Brownlow’s report appears to me to be competent. Had he considered the evidence he relied upon to be less appropriate to the subject property than the others he valued, then in my judgement he would have indicated this.[48]Insufficient detail was submitted in respect of Mr Walker’s comparables for me to place anything other than very limited weight on them, and in any event I accept Mr James’s contention that they were in better locations, some distance from the subject property. This was borne out by the comments in Mr Brownlow’s schedule. For instance Ellesmere Road was stated to be in a better location on the west side of the A666 to the north of the town centre; Greenbank Terrace and Empress Street were also some distance to the north, on the opposite side of the M65; Cemetery Road was described as being in a popular area to the south of the town centre. In general, therefore, Mr Walker’s comparables provide limited detail but appear to be in respect of properties in better locations than the subject property.[49]Mr James’s evidence in respect of transactions outside the Redearth triangle was, like Mr Walker’s, fairly sketchy, and again I have placed limited weight upon them, including the purchase of the claimant’s new property at Inverness Road.[50]As the DV identified, the most reliable evidence appears to be the settlements within the Redearth triangle. The Tribunal has on many occasions indicated its reluctance to place weight on settlement evidence, which formed a large part of the acquiring authority’s case. Mr Walker, whilst not using the phrase, indicated that there was a Delaforce effect behind some of the settlements. I accept that that might be the case, but in my judgement, in the particular facts of this case, it is the evidence upon which to concentrate given the unspecific nature of the evidence outside the Redearth triangle.[51]Of the six properties that were the subject of Mr Brownlow’s submission to the DV, the owners of four subsequently settled at the figures that the DV arrived at in his independent review. To that extent, those comparables can be considered to be settlement transactions. The exception was 11 Redearth Street, which Mr James said was settled at £73,500, whereas the DV’s valuation was £79,000.[52]In analysing this evidence, I do not accept Mr James’s contention that valuing on a rate per square metre basis is only appropriate for uniform, new build properties. The method is commonly used for properties such as the comparables here, and was used by the DV in arriving at his opinion of value - which the acquiring authority adopted rather than challenged. In my judgement, it is a valid valuation tool, but should be used with a degree of caution when dealing with properties of small size such as the subject property and comparable evidence.[53]Mr Brownlow settled the claim in respect of 6 Franklin Street. This was in poor condition, with some structural issues. The sale price of £84,000 equated to £858/sqm on a gross external area basis. Mr James considered that an appropriate conversion from gross external to gross internal area would be a 15% reduction – bringing 97.92 sqm down to 83.23 sqm, and thus reflecting £1,009/sqm, for a property in poor order with structural issues. The extent of those issues is unknown, and I have not placed significant weight on the transaction.[54]5 Lower Cross Street was acquired at £75,750, equating to £1,148 per sqm, but this was an end of terrace house, and was very small at 66 sqm. It is less useful as a comparable but again provides a guide level of value per sqm, and in my judgment sets the highest point in the range of likely value.[55]4 Sunnybank, a property in very poor condition with no central heating, was acquired at £60,000, equating to £870 per sqm.[56]The two key comparables must be those on the same street as the subject property – numbers 2 and 11 Redearth Street. The DV banded 2 Redearth Street with the subject property – both being larger properties in good condition (although it would appear that the subject property was in rather better condition than number 2). It was acquired for £91,000, equating to £866.67 per sqm. Mr James said that it had an attic room, but there is no evidence before me of how he devalued this, or the effect that it had on the sale price. The DV made no allowance for it. It was in slightly inferior condition to the subject property. £866.67 per sqm must, in my judgement, form the lowest valuation parameter.[57]11 Redearth Street, was a two bedroomed property in good condition with full double glazing, and was acquired at £73,500, equating to £896.34 per sqm. In my judgement, the subject property, if valued on a sqm basis, should be valued at a rate per sqm of something in that order or slightly higher which would lead to a value of £105,768 or just in excess of that.[58]I remind myself at this point that the parties’ contentions (accepting that the acquiring authority does not prefer the method) on an agreed gross internal area of 118 sqm, equate to £932/sqm for the claimant, and £826/sqm for the acquiring authority. The acquiring authority’s figure is clearly too low, but the claimant’s is slightly too high.[59]Having considered the value per square metre, I briefly consider the value holistically. The appellant’s new property was purchased at £105,000, in a better location than the subject property but requiring some refurbishment work. There were a number of transactions in the order of £110,000, but generally in respect of properties in better locations.[60]On a “stand back and look at it” approach, disregarding the CPO, there is no doubt that the subject property would have been of attraction to purchasers, and was in first class order having been comprehensively refurbished. The DV’s view was that properties on Redearth Street had a ceiling value of £100,000. I consider that to be slightly low in the case of the subject property having regard to its condition, which was clearly better than any of the comparables. However I accept that the location factor would limit the amount that a hypothetical purchaser would be prepared to pay.[61]Having regard to all of the evidence, I determine that the market value of the subject property at the date of valuation would have been £106,000, and I award this amount to the claimant as compensation.[62]I also award to the claimant a home loss payment, at 10%, of £10,600.[63]In respect of disturbance, I am not persuaded by the claimant’s contentions in relation to item 1. I accept that a degree of compensation has already been allowed for in the acquisition value of the house. The acquisition price of the claimant’s new property presumably reflected its condition, and I consider that the claimant would receive value for money from the proposed purchase of new floor coverings, curtains and blinds. Insufficient evidence has been submitted in respect of whether any of the items could have been refitted at the claimant’s new property. I accept the acquiring authority’s position on this point and award to the claimant £700.00.[64]In respect of item 2, in relation to travel costs to the claimant’s daughter’s school, I accept the acquiring authority’s submission that the claim is too remote from the scheme, and I make no award. In respect of disturbance, items 3 and 4, relating to representation at the High Court action to overturn the CPO, and the previous CPO, and relating to representation at the public inquiry for the CPO, do not fall as compensation under Rule 6, and I make no award. Determination[65]I determine that the compensation payable to the claimant is as follows:[66]In respect of the claim under Rule 2, I award £106,000, plus a home loss payment of £10,600.[67]In respect of the claim under Rule 6, I award £700.00[68]The claimant is also entitled to statutory interest.[69]The hearing took place under the Tribunal’s simplified procedure, where costs are only awarded in exceptional circumstances. Neither party suggested that there were any such circumstances and I therefore make no order as to costs. P D McCrea FRICS 24 September 2014

order

completed sales verified by the Land Registry; property sales in 2003 within and adjoining the Redearth triangle; pending sales; and asking prices and “hearsay” evidence - the latter not being given much credence. Mr James accepted that whilst this evidence was irrelevant to a 2008 valuation, it served to demonstrate that his firm had thoroughly researched the market in establishing beacon values prior to opening negotiations in 2005.

Cited in 1 later judgment