Kerry Lambert v Kingston Upon Hull Council

In a compensation claim following an agreed acquisition treated as compulsory purchase, recoverable disturbance expenses must be reasonable. An acquiring authority need not meet an unsupported charge for unlimited specialist negotiations by an unqualified lay adviser, particularly where the claimant has not paid the invoice. It may, however, be reasonable to compensate necessary removal and short-term storage expenses where the claimant could not move possessions to alternative accommodation. The tribunal must prevent double recovery where an earlier removal invoice already included storage.

Under the simplified procedure, costs are exceptional. Where a late settlement offer and a conditional element of the award do not justify a costs order, each party may properly bear its own costs.

Kerry Lambert v Kingston Upon Hull Council concerned compensation following the Council's agreed purchase of Mr Lambert's leasehold flat in a block scheduled for demolition and redevelopment. The parties had agreed the market-value payment, home loss payment and other specified sums, but disputed disturbance expenses.

Mr Lambert claimed the cost of assistance provided by an unqualified adviser, removal costs and prolonged storage costs. The Council contended that the claims were excessive or unnecessary, while accepting limited sums for the adviser and removals. The reference was heard under the Upper Tribunal's simplified procedure.

The central issues were whether the claimed expenses were reasonable and whether either party should receive costs after the Council's late settlement offer.

1. The claim was allowed in part. The tribunal awarded £2,250: £750 for Mr Craft's assistance, conditional upon Mr Lambert proving that he had paid at least that sum, and £1,500 inclusive of VAT for removals and storage.

2. The Council had reasonably offered to meet the cost of a chartered surveyor undertaking a valuation. It was not reasonable to require it to pay for unlimited time charged by an unqualified lay person conducting specialist negotiations. Mr Craft's invoice was excessive and unsupported: there was no evidence that he had contributed to the valuation or that his work had produced the increase in the Council's offer. The tribunal nevertheless accepted that he had actively negotiated the ex gratia payment and service-charge reimbursement, making £750 reasonable if paid.

3. Mr Lambert could not relocate his possessions to the property owned by his former wife when the flat was acquired. Storage was therefore reasonable. However, the tribunal inferred that the earlier removal invoice of £1,250 plus VAT included six months' storage. It allowed £450 for removals and the £800 balance for that six-month storage period, but rejected any further recovery for storage already paid through that invoice.

4. On costs, the simplified procedure permits an award only for unreasonable failure to accept settlement, other unreasonable conduct, or exceptional circumstances. The Council's £1,850 offer was made shortly before the hearing and exceeded the unconditional part of the award, but not the award if the conditional £750 were included. The appropriate order was that each party bear its own costs.

not stated in the judgment.