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

In her notice of objection to the Order, the Claimant said that the Second Defendant had failed to take reasonable steps to acquire the Premises from her by agreement. The Second Defendant had begun to make plans for the refurbishment of JRP from 2003 onwards, but had not attempted to enter into meaningful negotiations for the acquisition of her leasehold interest in the Premises until October 2021. The Second Defendant had later put forward a draft settlement agreement to which she and her family were able to agree, subject to resolution of two outstanding matters. Yet the Second Defendant had failed to negotiate constructively on those outstanding matters. Had they done so in a timely way, it would have been possible to reach agreement and to have avoided the stressful and protracted compulsory purchase proceedings which she and her family were now having to endure.

The Claimant’s first concern about the draft agreement was that on a true understanding of its terms, it did not in fact oblige the Second Defendant to refurbish the Premises and return them to the Claimant; or failing that, to pay to the Claimant the enhanced compensation purportedly payable under its terms. The second point of concern related to the uplift offer proposed under the draft agreement. That proposal had been the subject of continuing discussion between the Claimant’s lawyers and the Second Defendant, but in late March 2023 the Second Defendant had peremptorily withdrawn the offer to include the uplift payment in the draft agreement. That was clear evidence of the Second Defendant’s failure to negotiate constructively or to make reasonable efforts to acquire by agreement the rights in the Premises which they actually required in order to carry out the refurbishment of JRP.

The Claimant set out a series of matters as evidence of the Second Defendant’s failure to perform their repairing obligations as Landlord of JRP. They had failed to repair and maintain the drains, the water supply and heating installations. They had withdrawn security cameras and the concierge service. They had licence film companies to use JRP for filming work, which had caused serious noise and vibration to the Claimant and her family, and resulted in the failure of the lifts serving resident occupiers. This presented severe difficulties for the Claimant and her family who live on the upper floor of the tower block. The Second Defendant had even broken into the Premises and installed a gate which prevented the Claimant and her family gaining access to the Premises.

The particular relevance of this history of failure was said to be that it had resulted in a depressed value for the Claimant’s leasehold interest in the Premises in the “no-scheme” world, which would be the conventional basis for determining the compensation payable to her under the Land Compensation Acts. That meant that there was a particular onus on the Second Defendant to negotiate constructively with a view to avoiding the need to resort to compulsory purchase.