Adrian Philip Glasspool v London Borough of Southwark

In compulsory-purchase compensation, open market value must be assessed by reliable comparable transactions and objective adjustments. A sale requiring a very substantial adjustment may cease to be a useful comparable. Where exchange dates are unproved, indexation from the known completion date is preferable to a speculative assumed exchange date.

Disturbance compensation excludes avoidable losses and losses unsupported by evidence. However, costs not yet incurred at the valuation date may be compensated where, on the balance of probabilities, they are likely to result from the acquisition. The tribunal may make a final assessment of such future loss rather than leave a contingent claim open indefinitely.

The claimant’s leasehold maisonette on the Heygate Estate was compulsorily acquired by the London Borough of Southwark. The agreed valuation date was 6 November 2013.

The parties disputed the open market value of the property. They also disputed disturbance claims for chattels left at the property and the prospective costs of purchasing an alternative dwelling. The claimant contended that the authority’s valuation prevented him from acquiring replacement accommodation.

The reference was heard under the simplified procedure. The central issues were the appropriate comparable-sales methodology and whether future acquisition costs could be awarded before they had been incurred.

1. The Tribunal determined total compensation at £322,070. It assessed the open market value at £286,000, added a 10% home-loss payment of £28,600, and awarded £7,470 for disturbance. It later ordered the authority to pay the claimant’s agreed expert costs of £7,800 plus VAT.

2. Comparable evidence had to be adjusted on a principled basis for the relevant differences. In the absence of evidence of exchange dates, adjustment from the known completion date was preferred to an assumed exchange date two months earlier. Percentage adjustments were generally more consistent across the available comparables. The Tribunal gave most weight to the comparable accepted by both experts and made specific adjustments for block type, view, garden, condition and location.

3. The Tribunal gave no weight to sales that were insufficiently comparable, including a small flat requiring a 35% size adjustment and a sale on the separately blighted Aylesbury Estate. It treated the Sachikenye v London Borough of Greenwich approach as a last resort and unsuitable on the evidence in this case. The resulting open market value was £286,000.

4. The claim for the value of chattels left at the property was disallowed. The claimant had a duty to mitigate loss. He could have disposed of items before dispossession, and his estimates of their second-hand value were unsupported by evidence.

5. Future acquisition costs were recoverable despite not having been incurred. Compensation is assessed at the valuation date, and future losses which are probably caused by the acquisition may be awarded. Later events may inform that assessment. The claimant’s credible intention to buy replacement accommodation and the reasonableness of the claimed costs justified a final award of £7,470. Unlike the interim course taken in Roberts v Greater London Council, the Tribunal required finality and did not leave the issue open indefinitely.

6. The Tribunal distinguished Lancaster City Council v Thomas Newall Limited. Although loss must be proved by evidence, assessment of ordinary Crawley costs fell within the Tribunal’s expertise and the evidence here was sufficient. Under section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, the authority’s unconditional offer was exceeded by the award, so the claimant received his agreed expert costs.

Not stated in the judgment. This was a compensation reference following compulsory acquisition of the claimant’s leasehold interest.