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

I base this summary of the relevant factual background on those points of chronology that have been agreed between the parties and on the contemporary documents. The parties did not agree any summary of the history of management of JRP following the beginning of the decanting process in 2005.

The Second Defendant initiated plans to regenerate JRP and the wider Carpenters Estate as long ago as 2003. Between 2005 and 2013, a number of different proposals were considered. During that period, the Second Defendant began the process of decanting existing tenants from flats in JRP.

From 2018 onwards, a change in Mayoral administration at the Second Defendant led to a renewed commitment to regenerating Carpenters Estate. At the end of that year, Cabinet decided to move away from a joint venture with private developers as the regeneration vehicle and to pursue a “resident led” redevelopment model.

On 17 April 2019, the Second Defendant’s agents made an offer to purchase the Claimant’s leasehold interest in the Premises. The Claimant’s son’s evidence to the public inquiry was that the Claimant did not receive that letter.

In early 2020 Populo was appointed by the Second Defendant as development manager. Part of Populo’s role was to produce a masterplan for the Carpenters Estate and to engage with existing residents for that purpose.

On 30 June 2021, the Second Defendant’s agents made a second offer to purchase the Claimant’s leasehold interest in the Premises. The Claimant’s son’s evidence to the public inquiry was again that the Claimant did not receive that letter. It appears that neither this offer nor the previous offer was followed up by the Second Defendant’s agents at that time.

In July 2021, Cabinet endorsed the masterplan for redevelopment of the Carpenters Estate and decided to carry out a ballot of existing residents by posing the question “Are you in favour of the proposal for the regeneration of the Carpenters Estate?”. Residents were invited to answer that question “Yes” or “No”. The ballot was informed by a document entitled “Your Carpenters Estate Landlord Offer” [“the Landlord Offer”] which was in two parts. Part one described the design proposals for regeneration of the Carpenters Estate as proposed in the masterplan. Part 2 explained the housing offer for residents living on or with the right to return to the Carpenters Estate. Page 22 of the Landlord Offer was headed “The offer to resident homeowners living in James Riley Point and Lund Point”. Amongst other things, it was stated that resident leaseholders whose flats in JRP were due to be refurbished would have the option of selling their interest or buying an alternative home in the regeneration area. They could choose to move into a temporary home of comparable size and type near to their existing home, to allow the refurbishment works to be carried out. The Second Defendant would offer such accommodation and pay the reasonable costs of the move. Resident leaseholders of JRP would be offered a range of options to continue to own a new home on the Carpenters Estate, depending on their financial circumstances, including arrangements to enable them to bridge the gap between the value of their existing leasehold interest and the price of a flat on the redeveloped estate. The Landlord Offer concluded with the following –

“If an agreement cannot be reached, the Council may, as a last resort, apply for a compulsory purchase order to gain vacant possession to complete works to the building in which your home is located”.

In December 2021 the ballot resulted in 73% of existing residents answering “Yes” to the question posed in the Landlord Offer. Those in favour included the Claimant.

On 20 April 2022, the Second Defendant provided the Claimant and her family with a draft agreement which formed the basis for discussions and negotiations over the following months. In May 2022 all remaining leaseholders in JRP were provided with hotel accommodation following the failure of the lift at the building. The Claimant and her family moved into a hotel. By September 2022, agreement had yet to be reached with the four leaseholders, including the Claimant. It was an that point that the Second Defendant included the offer of an option uplift payment [“the uplift offer”] with a view to bringing negotiations to a successful conclusion. I set out the terms of the uplift offer in paragraphs 109 and 110 below.

The Second Defendant subsequently imposed a deadline of 12 December 2022 for acceptance of the uplift offer, which was extended to 16 December 2022. By that date, the Second Defendant had not reached agreement with any of the four remaining leaseholders.

Meanwhile, in December 2022 the Claimant and her family moved from hotel accommodation into temporary alternative accommodation, where they continued to live at the date of the public inquiry.

On 23 February 2023, the Second Defendant reinstated the uplift offer. A deadline of 24 March 2023 was given for acceptance of that offer. On 9 March 2023, the Second Defendant sent a revised draft agreement including the uplift offer to the solicitors then retained by the Claimant.