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

In responding to these objections in their statement of case, the Second Defendant contended that they had indeed made reasonable efforts to reach agreement with the Claimant either to acquire her leasehold interest in the Premises; or to secure vacant possession of the Premises for the purposes of implementing the Scheme and then restoring the refurbished flat to the Claimant and her family. The Second Defendant said that negotiations with the four remaining leaseholders at JRP, including the Claimant, had been ongoing for a number of years. The Second Defendant had offered terms of settlement to those leaseholders which included an option to return to a fully refurbished property. Three out of those four leaseholders accepted the terms offered and had since given vacant possession of their flats at JRP.

The Second Defendant had provided remaining leaseholders with a detailed explanation of the terms on offer. The draft form of agreement included contractual safeguards to protect the leaseholders in the very unlikely event that the Scheme failed to begin; or once begun, the works failed to complete. This included a payment to the leaseholder of the value of their lease assuming that refurbishment had been carried out. The draft agreement included a provision whereby the Council would have to pay each remaining leaseholder an enhanced payment – the uplift offer - in the event that the refurbishment works required as part of the Scheme were not completed by a specific deadline. This incentivised offer was made on the basis that the Second Defendant secured early vacant possession of JRP as a whole, thereby enabling the Second Defendant to secure GLA grant funding, and to begin and complete the works required as part of the Scheme in a timely manner, thereby providing benefits and cost savings to the Second Defendant. As agreement was not reached in time with the Claimant, the Second Defendant was no longer able to secure those benefits and costs savings. Consequently, as the Second Defendant could no longer justify the uplift offer as representing value for money, that element of the draft agreement had been withdrawn from the negotiations with the Claimant.

The Second Defendant, however, committed to continuing negotiations for acquisition and or vacant possession of the Claimant’s leasehold interest and would attempt to negotiate with her in parallel with the compulsory purchase proceedings. The Second Defendant remained willing to agree to the Claimant having the option either to move into comparable temporary accommodation in the local area for the duration of the refurbishment works and thereafter return to the Premises; or to sell her leasehold interest to the Second Defendant by private treaty. However, the Second Defendant would not agree to buy the Claimant’s leasehold interest in the Premises at a price very substantially in excess of its open market value.

The Second Defendant denied that they had failed to maintain JRP. They contended that they had acted in accordance with their obligations both as Landlord and as local housing authority. They disputed the Claimant’s contention that there had been a history of neglect which had resulted in diminution in the value of the Premises. The Claimant had been offered a package of measures which accord with the CPO Guidance and the compensation code; and the option to return to a fully refurbished and improved home at the Premises following completion of the Scheme.