Ingle v Scarborough Borough Council

For a home loss payment under section 29(1)(c) of the Land Compensation Act 1973, redevelopment alone does not establish displacement. Displacement carries an element of compulsion and requires sufficient action or persuasion by the local authority landlord. Whether a tenant was displaced is a question of fact assessed objectively in all the circumstances. A tenant who positively wishes to move and accepts a transfer to better accommodation may have moved voluntarily, even though the move would not have occurred without the redevelopment scheme.

The claimant was a secure tenant of Scarborough Borough Council. Her home was included in a redevelopment scheme for the Edghill Estate. She had previously sought a transfer, supported the redevelopment, and accepted suitable alternative accommodation after the Council gave priority to tenants affected by the scheme.

The York County Court found that she had moved voluntarily and dismissed her claim for a home loss payment under section 29(1)(c) of the Land Compensation Act 1973. The appeal concerned whether the judge had applied the correct test and whether, on the findings, the claimant had been displaced in consequence of redevelopment.

1. Appeal dismissed. The County Court judge had applied the correct legal test. The statutory question was whether the claimant had been displaced from her dwelling in consequence of redevelopment, and the authorities correctly treated that as requiring consideration of whether she had moved voluntarily.
2. “Displaced” in section 29(1)(c) carries an overtone of compulsion. It does not require a possession order, since possession proceedings are addressed separately by section 29(1)(e). Nevertheless, redevelopment alone is insufficient. The statutory elements include redevelopment and displacement in consequence of it.
3. Displacement requires at least sufficient action or persuasion by the local authority landlord. The question is factual and depends on the circumstances of each case. Some tenants may move voluntarily after learning of redevelopment, while others may be displaced where persuasive conduct leads them to believe that they must leave.
4. The principles in Caplan v The Greater London Council [1985] HLR 104 and Follows v The Peabody Trust [1983] 10 HLR 62 were consistent with that approach. The present case was materially different from Bulger v Knowsley Borough Council (1989) JLA 25.
5. The claimant had wanted to move before the redevelopment scheme matured, positively wished to transfer, welcomed the redevelopment, and accepted accommodation in an area she had chosen. The judge was entitled to conclude that she had moved voluntarily and that the finding was not open to disturbance on appeal.

The appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, to be assessed by a costs judge. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2002] EWCA Civ 290. Appeal from the York County Court dismissed.
• York County Court: His Honour Judge Wolstenholme dismissed the claim on 12 June 2001. Permission to appeal was granted on 28 July 2001.