fbpx

Homelessness and the Need to Make Use of Vacant Investment Properties

15th October 2020 By

Amidst widespread homelessness, owners of investment properties who allow them to stand empty for extended periods can find themselves on the receiving end of compulsory purchase orders (CPOs). Exactly that happened in a case concerning a desirable end-of-terrace property which had been vacant for 25 years.

The house was located in an urban area where about 5,000 people were in urgent, high or medium need of permanent accommodation. The local authority took the view that the property’s vacant status since 1994, combined with its deteriorating condition, was detrimental to the area’s amenities.

On the basis that the public interest demanded the house’s return to residential use, the council exercised its powers under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and the Housing Act 1985 to serve a CPO on its owner. Post acquisition, the council planned to auction the property to a buyer who was willing to refurbish it.

In challenging the order, the property’s owner said that the chronic depression and anxiety from which he had suffered for several years had affected his engagement with the council and prevented him from taking steps to bring the house back into use. There was no dispute that his condition amounted to a disability.

In dismissing his appeal, however, the High Court rejected arguments that the council had breached its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It had neither discriminated against him on grounds of his disability nor failed to make reasonable adjustments to cater for his condition. His plea that the CPO violated his human right to peacefully enjoy his private property also fell on fallow ground.

In an attempt to find a less draconian solution, the council had for many years sought to cooperate with the owner. It took the rational view that the real reason for the lack of progress was that the owner lacked the funds required to refurbish the house. In also finding the CPO proportionate, the Court noted that it was an investment property in respect of which the council would pay full market value. There were compelling reasons for making the CPO in the public interest.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Retired Businessman's Final Will Ruled Invalid

2nd May, 2024 By

Having your will drawn up professionally by a qualified solicitor is always a sensible precaution, especially in later life. In a recent case, the High Court ruled that a retired businessman lacked testamentary capacity when he made a will less than three and a half years before he died at the age of 87. The man and his first wife were married for nearly 40 years and had four children. After her death he married again. In October 2015 he made a new will, revoking in most respects a will...

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...