AC-2024-LON-001877 - [2025] EWHC 2132 (Admin)

In his closing submissions on these matters, Mr Jones KC submitted that the Second Defendant had failed to make reasonable efforts to negotiate with the Claimant and her family for the land and rights needed to enable the refurbishment works to be carried out at JRP and the Scheme to be delivered. The Second Defendant’s efforts, such as they were, must be judged in the context of the prolonged and persistent mismanagement of JRP by the Second Defendant as both landlord and local housing authority, of which the Claimant had given detailed evidence. The Second Defendant’s offers to purchase the Claimant’s lease in 2019 and 2021 had not been received by her. The Second Defendant had not followed up on either offer. Negotiations did not begin until April 2022.

When the Second Defendant introduced the uplift offer into the draft agreement which formed the basis for negotiations with a view to avoiding the need for compulsory purchase, the Second Defendant had set deadlines for acceptance firstly in December 2022 and later in March 2023, but had not informed the Claimant or her solicitors of the reason for imposing that deadline. The Claimant, her family and her solicitors had been unaware that the uplift offer was contingent upon the Second Defendant securing the GLA grant until very shortly prior to the final imposed deadline expired on 29 March 2023. That was unreasonable. That failure was compounded by the Second Defendant’s refusal shortly to extend the final deadline at the request of Irwin Mitchell on 29 March 2023, to enable the solicitors to give proper advice to the Claimant and her family on a complex draft contract. The Claimant’s evidence was that the other remaining leaseholders had simply given in under pressure from the Second Defendant to complete the revised draft agreement by the final imposed deadline of 29 March 2023.

It had been unreasonable for the Second Defendant to decline to reinstate the uplift offer in subsequent negotiations with the Claimant’s solicitors. The Claimant’s son had made clear that the Claimant required the security of the uplift offer so that, should the Scheme fail for any reason, she and her family would be in a position to purchase comparable alternative leasehold premises in the local area. Given the history of abortive plans to regenerate JRP since 2005, that was plainly a commitment which the Second Defendant acting reasonably ought to have accepted. Whereas clause 9.4 of the draft agreement would allow the Second Defendant to return the Premises to the Claimant in their current unrefurbished state, should the Second Defendant decide at a later date not to commence the Scheme.

The Second Defendant had failed to undertake meaningful efforts to negotiate an agreement with the Claimant which would avoid the need to resort to compulsory purchase powers.

For the Second Defendant, Mr Edwards KC submitted that the Claimant’s criticisms of the Second Defendant’s efforts to negotiate an agreement with the Claimant were unjustified. Offers to purchase had been made in 2019 and 2021. The Second Defendant had stated their policy of support for remaining leaseholders at JRP in the Landlord Offer, which the Claimant had supported in the residents’ ballot. Negotiations between the remaining leaseholders, including the Claimant, and the Second Defendant had been in progress since April 2022.

The purpose of the draft agreement whose terms were in discussion between the parties was to enable the Second Defendant to secure the rights of vacant possession which they needed to deliver the Scheme, and thereby avoid the need for acquisition of the remaining leaseholders’ leases, whether by agreement or by compulsion. The terms offered would enable the leaseholders and their families to move at no cost to themselves into comparable temporary accommodation for the duration of the refurbishment works at JRP; and to return, again at no cost to themselves following completion of those works. They would receive the Phase One Payment and reimbursement of costs reasonably incurred under the Phase Two Payment. They would take the benefit of a refurbished home at JRP and the enhanced value of their leases, again at no cost to themselves.

The purpose of inclusion of the uplift offer in clause 10.14 of the revised draft agreement had been to incentivise the remaining leaseholders to complete the agreement. Three of the four remaining leaseholders had felt able to complete the revised draft agreement by the final deadline set by the Second Defendant. The Claimant alone had not done so. It had been reasonable for the Second Defendant to impose that deadline in order to ensure that their exposure to the cost of the uplift offer was contingent on securing the GLA grant. Otherwise, the uplift offer would not represent value for money for the reasons given by Ms Clark in her letter to the Claimant’s solicitors of 6 October 2023. For those same reasons, it had been reasonable for the Second Defendant to decline to reinstate the uplift offer into the draft agreement on which the parties had continued to negotiate.

The terms which remained on offer to the Claimant, as stated by Mr Mackin in his evidence to the public inquiry, nevertheless provide a fair and reasonable basis for the Claimant to withdraw her objection to the Order and reach agreement with the Second Defendant. As the Claimant’s son had confirmed in evidence, the outstanding issue for the Claimant was the Second Defendant’s refusal to reinstate the uplift offer. The Second Defendant had made clear to the Claimant why they were not willing to reinstate the uplift offer. Their reasons for refusing to do so were justified and disclosed no failure to engage in meaningful negotiations with the Claimant.

Mr Edwards KC said that the Second Defendant disputed the Claimant’s contentions that they were guilty of mismanaging JRP and had failed in their duties as landlord and local housing authority. The Claimant had not pursued legal proceedings for breach of covenant or of statutory duty. In any event, those issues were of no assistance to the inspector in forming his judgment whether the Second Defendant had conducted meaningful negotiations and made reasonable efforts to acquire the Claimant’s leasehold interest by agreement.