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

The Claimant’s challenge under this ground is to the validity of the inspector’s conclusion that the Second Defendant as acquiring authority had taken reasonable steps to acquire all the Order land, including the Claimant’s leasehold interest in the premises, by agreement. The Claimant contends that in reaching that conclusion, the inspector had misunderstood the terms of the “uplift offer” made to the Claimant in early 2023, which in fact exposed the Claimant to the risk of being left without compensation in an unrefurbished home on an upper floor of an otherwise uninhabitable tower block. Further, the inspector had failed to have proper regard to the history of interactions between the Claimant and the Second Defendant during the period of abortive attempts to bring forward the refurbishment of JRP. In order to take proper account of that history and its impact on the question whether the Second Defendant had acted reasonably in negotiations to acquire the Premises, the inspector needed to reach a judgment as to whether the Second Defendant had been in breach of its covenants as Landlord and of its duties as local housing authority. The inspector had failed to do so. Finally, the inspector had failed to give proper and adequate reasons for his conclusion.