Tian, R (on the application of) v Commission for Local Administration in England & Anor

A prospective purchaser exercising the right to buy council property must satisfy himself that the council’s valuation reflects the true market value. An assumption that the council’s valuation can be accepted without independent professional advice does not establish an error of law or maladministration. Where the council has followed the statutory right-to-buy procedures and made no legal error, judicial review lacks merit. Permission may also be refused where the claim was not brought promptly, even if it was issued within the three-month period.

The claimant sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the Commission for Local Administration in England. The claim arose from the claimant’s proposed purchase of council property contaminated with asbestos. He had accepted the purchase price in the statutory notice without obtaining an independent professional valuation.

The Local Government Ombudsman’s investigator concluded that it was for the claimant, as prospective purchaser, to satisfy himself that the council’s valuation reflected the true market value of comparable properties. Permission had previously been refused on the ground of delay. This was a renewed application concerning the investigator’s letter dated 27 June 2008.

1. Permission refused. The claim was bound to fail on the merits. The claimant, rather than the council, was responsible for satisfying himself that the valuation represented the true market value of similar properties on similar estates in the area.

2. The Interested Party had made no error of law and had followed the statutory right-to-buy procedures. The claimant’s predicament attracted sympathy, but sympathy did not provide a basis for judicial review.

3. A finding against the council through the Commission required maladministration. Without maladministration, the Commission could not provide a remedy. The material before the court disclosed no arguable maladministration or legal error.

4. Permission was refused on the additional ground of delay. Although the application was lodged within the three-month limit by one day, the claim could and should have been brought much more promptly. The facts were materially identical to those in the claimant’s earlier unsuccessful judicial review proceedings.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Permission for judicial review was previously refused on 3 December 2008 by Stuart Isaacs QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge, on the ground of delay. On renewal, the application was refused on the grounds that the claim lacked merit and was not brought promptly.