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

Both the Claimant and her son gave written and oral evidence at the public inquiry. The Claimant gave detailed evidence of the deteriorating state of repair and maintenance of JRP during the years following 2005. She referred to problems with heating, cleaning, security, water supply, drainage, leaks and flooding. She gave impressive details of the prolonged noise, disruption and disturbance that she and her family had experienced in consequence of the Second Defendant permitting parts of JRP to be used for film making. These activities had led to physical damage to the Premises, power cuts, the lift becoming out of order and security problems. They had provoked the Claimant into threatening legal proceedings against the Second Defendant as her Landlord. On one occasion in early 2011, the Second Defendant actually broke into the Premises and installed a steel door which prevented the Claimant and her family from gaining entry. The Second Defendant later explained that this had been done in error due to their operatives mistaking the Premises for another flat at JRP. Although the Second Defendant did not accept as accurate the detailed account of these matters given by the Claimant, it is understandable that she and her family should have formed the perception that the Second Defendant was indifferent to the impact of conditions at JRP on those leaseholders who continued to live there; and even pursuing a policy of deliberate neglect.

The Claimant’s son gave evidence of his active involvement in negotiations with the Second Defendant. He confirmed that the Claimant and her family had voted in favour of the Landlord Offer as they wished JRP to be refurbished rather than demolished. He said that negotiations between the Claimant and the Second Defendant began in earnest in April 2022. The Claimant had raised two particular issues. Firstly, the Claimant wished to be able to purchase a property in the local area. Secondly, the Claimant wished to be compensated for all that she and her family had had to endure while living at JRP during the period since 2005.

The Claimant’s son stated his understanding of the main terms offered by the Second Defendant under the revised draft agreement as follows –

“The structure of the contract was to give the Council a licence to carry out works to the flat. When the works were carried out the Council offered to give the flat back to us. We had an option to sell the flat to the Council at the no scheme value, throughout that process. However, if the Council in its discretion decided that the works were not viable having started them they would pay us the value of the property as if it had been fully refurbished. Finally, if the Council decided that it could not commence the works then it will hand the property back to us. The contract also contained option uplift payment which was £1 million minus the purchase price and disturbance payment. This payment was only available if all the leaseholders signed the agreement by a certain date”.

He set out a number of concerns with the Second Defendant’s offer which he had raised during negotiations. He found the revised draft agreement to be a complex document. He was unhappy that the Second Defendant insisted on negotiating collectively with the remaining leaseholders. He was concerned about the short deadline for acceptance of the revised draft agreement in March 2023. He was concerned about failure of the Scheme and what would happen were the refurbishment project not to succeed. In the event of failure, the Claimant’s family wished to be in a position to buy a property in the local area. They had instructed new solicitors to review the revised draft contract and to advise on its terms.

The Claimant’s son said that the outstanding issue for the Claimant was the Second Defendant’s refusal to reinstate the uplift offer into the draft agreement. The Second Defendant had acted unreasonably in declining Irwin Mitchell’s request for a short extension of the deadline for acceptance of the revised draft agreement at the end of March 2023. He was of the view that had the Second Defendant done so, the terms of the revised draft agreement, including the uplift offer, would have been agreed and the need for compulsory purchase avoided. He was also concerned at the Second Defendant’s refusal to pay the Claimant’s professional fees incurred since March 2023.

The Claimant’s son said that the family had been unable to gain ready access to the Premises due to the lifts at JRP being out of order since May 2022. They were now housed temporarily in temporary accommodation which was too small for the family’s needs. It was a furnished property which meant that the family had not been able to use their own furniture and many of their belongings whilst living there.

In his proof of evidence on behalf of the Second Defendant, Mr Mackin gave a detailed chronological account of the history of negotiations with remaining leaseholders at JRP, including the Claimant and her family. He offered the following explanation of the uplift offer –

“The Council's initial attempts to encourage agreement with all four leaseholders by the end of July 2022 had been unsuccessful. To incentivise leaseholders to provide early vacant possession, from September 2022, the Council proposed a time limited offer on one aspect of the agreement which became known as the Option Uplift Payment. In essence, where the Council exercised an option to acquire because either the refurbishment works had been terminated or practical completion not achieved by an agreed longstop date, the offer operated to ensure that leaseholders would receive a minimum total payment of £1m, taking into account other payments to which they were entitled under the overall offer. The uplift payment was made conditional upon all leaseholders in concert giving vacant possession by an agreed date which had to be before 31^st March 2023. In the event vacant possession was not given by all leaseholders by the agreed date, the uplift payment ceased to be payable to any. In this way, the Council sought to ensure that vacant possession could be obtained by the date stipulated by the GLA and to incentivise all the leaseholders to make the contractual commitment.

…

In early 2023, and with the GLA grant condition date of 31^st March approaching, the Council made renewed efforts to achieve agreement with all four leaseholders. Various dates to conclude agreement and provide vacant possession were proposed by the Council, including 17^th March and ultimately 29^th March 2023 was fixed as the contractual date by which vacant possession was required to be given by all leaseholders to trigger the entitlement to the uplift payment. As such, the date of 29^th March 2023 became the date by which all leaseholders were required to give vacant possession so that they might benefit from the £1m uplift figure provided by the uplift payment calculation.

On 29^th March 2023, the three other leaseholders completed agreements with the Council and provided vacant possession of their flats. The Objectors did not complete their agreement with the Council as terms could not be agreed. Consequently, as vacant possession of Flat 128 was not obtained by 29^th March 2023, the Option Uplift Payment lapsed for all four leaseholders because the option was conditional on all four agreeing under contract to vacate by 29^th March 2023”.

Mr Mackin said that since April 2023, negotiation with the Claimant had been conducted through correspondence with her solicitors and exchanges of amended draft agreements. The principal matter in contention was the uplift offer. The Second Defendant had not been willing to reinstate the uplift offer for the reasons given by the Second Defendants’ solicitors in their letter of 6th October 2023.

Mr Mackin stated the principal terms which remained on offer by the Second Defendant to the Claimant –

“As a 12^th December 2023, the core terms of the Council's offer for the Objectors’ temporary relocation during refurbishment works are as follows:

•

a disturbance payment of £40,100 to be made on vacant possession (the “Phase One payment” under the agreement);

•

the provision of alternative temporary accommodation rent-free for the duration of the refurbishment;

•

reimbursement of all reasonable costs arising in consequence of the temporary move, including costs incurred by moving into the temporary accommodation and then on return from the temporary accommodation to Flat 128 (the “Phase Two payment” under the agreement);

•

removal and where necessary storage arrangements for the objectors’ possessions with a new for old offer on items that could not be moved; and

•

no charge for the refurbishment works.

Where the works are terminated for any reason or practical completion not achieved by an agreed longstop date, the Council's offer includes a mechanism under which the Council may exercise an option to acquire Flat 128. That acquisition is at an enhanced value that assumes practical completion has been reached and the refurbishment achieved. Where this mechanism applies, the Objectors’ entitlement is as follows:

•

acquisition of Flat 128 at an assumed value as if fully refurbished and the works completed, where that valuation is undertaken as if Flat 128 is within a private development;

•

payment of a further 10% of the assumed value of the property;

•

payment of all professional fees in relation to the transaction;

•

retention of the Phase One payment of £40,100;

•

to the extent not already covered by any Phase Two payment, reimbursement of reasonable expenditure in respect of finding and moving into alternative permanent accommodation incurred by the leaseholder up to the maximum amount that would be payable for costs in respect of purchasing a property up to the value of the hypothetical valuation; continued occupation of the rent-free temporary accommodation until the transaction completes”.

Mr Mackin said that the Second Defendant considered the compensation package on offer for the temporary relocation properly reflected the disruption that would be caused to the Claimant’s family by the temporary move and would support them during the refurbishment. On completion, those works would provide them with a newly refurbished flat within JRP at no cost to themselves. Further, where those works did not complete or did not complete on time, the compensation package proposed on acquisition of the Premises by the Second Defendant was highly favourable to the Claimant. That remained the case notwithstanding the withdrawal of the uplift offer.