Case No. UKUT-0269-(LC)

16.Mr Mustafa Behic, who has been unrepresented since July 2013, said in his statement of case that he laid the blame fairly and squarely on the Council for the fact that this matter had not been satisfactorily concluded by negotiation. It had always been the claimants’ intention to relocate within Blyth, but SW’s initial offer in June 2009 of £115,000 was insufficient to allow this to happen and far less than the property was worth, let alone if it was to include the loss of profits and compensation for other factors connected with the enforced relocation. Mr Behic referred, as an example, to 28-30 Bowes Street, Blyth which had sold for £175,000. It was a terraced building on a plot of equal size to No. 4 Station Street alone. Further, the reference land had added value in that No.4 Station Street had the benefit of an A5 hot food takeaway licence and the premises were immediately adjacent to a public car park. 17.Following the claimants’ change of experts in October 2010, Mr Behic said that he had advised Mr Andrew Toes of RMS that it was their intention to relocate, and a search commenced for suitable alternative premises. A property on Regent Street which was on the market for £285,000 was considered (believed by Ms McLoughlin to be a corner property known as 30 Regent Street/2 Simpson Street), but the Council said it would constitute betterment as it was closer to the town centre, even though it did not have the yard or buildings to the rear that 4 and 4A Station Street had. Another property in King Street (probably, according to Ms Mcloughlin, 7-8 King Street) on the market at £400,000 was dismissed for similar reasons. As to a plot of land that was partly owned by the Council and partly by a Mr Bell and located on the corner of Regent Street and King Street, Mr Behic stated that despite the site being smaller than that which the reference land occupied, he had been prepared to be co-operative and “willing to lose out to move matters forward”, SW had advised him that the Council wanted £100,000 towards the cost of acquiring the land and building a shop. This was not acceptable. Other available properties were considered (although not specifically detailed in the statement) but, Mr Behic stated, “At every turn, SW had an excuse and no interest in relocating my business.” 18.Mr Behic stated that after possession was taken of the reference land, he and Mr Toes had a meeting with SW, at which they were told the intention was to extinguish the businesses, but they reiterated the relocation intention. Soon afterwards, at another meeting, a figure based upon total extinguishment was offered and the claimants were urged to accept an advance payment of £131,692.50 (under s.52A of the Land Compensation Act 1973 – being 90% 0f the Council’s estimate of the level of compensation due) and the third claimant was advised to accept £6,600. At subsequent meetings and in correspondence, efforts were made to persuade him to accept the advance payment, together with a cheque from Sutherlands Auctioneers for the proceeds of the sale of the fixtures, fittings and equipment that had been left on the premises. All of these offers were refused on the grounds that they were too low and insufficient to enable them to relocate and re-start their businesses.19.An allegedly final open offer (with limited time for acceptance) to cover all heads of claim which was made by the Council on 20 May 2013 was discussed at a meeting on 30 May at which the claimants’ accountant, Mr Martin Atkinson, was also present. At that meeting the Council also provided details that had been sought relating to the compensation said to have been paid for other premises affected by the compulsory purchase. Mr Behic said that that offer was also rejected. 20.The statement of case then went on to say: “In 2012 my representatives along with the Council’s representative decided to totally extinguish the business. We provided the Council with a professional value as well as comparables, buildings that were sold on the open market in 2010 were used as a comparison…”and“Again in 2012, we provided values of the equipment that we were given by two separate parties…both companies specifically deal with the equipment I was using in my business. Yet all the values and evidence provided have been ignored.”