![[2024] UKUT 020 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Discussion and conclusions
There are four comparable transactions. It is clear from the plan attached to the compulsory purchase order that they are all in the same terrace, and therefore no adjustment is required for location when comparing one against another. Neither valuer made any adjustment for a change in levels of value over the (narrow) window of time in which the sales of the comparables properties took place.
From the evidence, the values of two-bedroomed properties in good condition lie in the range of £87-90,000, and Ms Rutherford puts the subject property at £90,000 on that basis, although the subject property has three bedrooms, albeit two of them are small.
In my judgment it is misleading to simply deduct the cost of refurbishment work (which the in seeking the CPO the authority put at around £35,000) from a refurbished value to arrive at a value in poor condition. The market seems more nuanced than that. In Mr Nicholls’ experience, properties in poor condition sold for £65-£75,000. It appears that developer/landlords are prepared to spend time and effort refurbishing a property with a view to letting it, without the need to immediately cover their costs. There appears to be force in Mr Nicholls’ comment that properties in poor condition are sought after, number 34 selling within days of being marketed. I agree with him that this is the best comparable sale, being in similar condition to the subject property, put on the market within days of the valuation date, and selling shortly thereafter at £72,500. But it had been cleared and deep-cleaned. In my view his valuation at £70,000 was sound.
I therefore determine the value of the subject property at the valuation date at £70,000.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the mortgagor has chosen not to participate in the negotiations or the reference. The bank had made a valid claim under 15(1) of the Act, and that under section 15(2) I determine that compensation of £70,000, plus any statutory interest, should be paid to the bank in part satisfaction of the mortgage debt secured against the property.
I make no award of costs.
P D McCrea FRICS FCIArb
22 January 2024
Right of appeal
Any party has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any point of law arising from this decision. The right of appeal may be exercised only with permission. An application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal must be sent or delivered to the Tribunal so that it is received within 1 month after the date on which this decision is sent to the parties (unless an application for costs is made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties, in which case an application for permission to appeal must be made within 1 month of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision on costs is sent to the parties). An application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, identify the alleged error or errors of law in the decision, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses permission to appeal a further application may then be made to the Court of Appeal for permission.