BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) >> Smith v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council [2010] UKUT 217 (LC) (16 June 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/LC/2011/ACQ_395_2010.html
Cite as: [2010] UKUT 217 (LC)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)

 

 

UT Neutral citation number: [2010] UKUT 217 (LC)

UTLC Case Number: ACQ/395/2010

 

TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007

COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – preliminary issue – whether claim statute-barred – held that it was – reference dismissed

IN THE MATTER OF A NOTICE OF REFERENCE

BETWEEN BARBARA WINIFRED SMITH Claimant

and

SANDWELL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL Acquiring

Authority

 

Re: Plots 6 &7A Thimblemill Road, Smethwick, West Midlands

 

 

Before: The President

 

 

Decision on written representations

 

 

 

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

1.           This reference relates to a claim for compensation for the compulsory acquisition by the acquiring authority of two allotments owned by the claimant’s late husband under the Sandwell (Thimblemill Road Allotments, Smethwick) Compulsory Purchase Order 2002.  The acquiring authority acquired the allotments, plots 6 and 7A in the CPO, pursuant to a vesting declaration.  They have asserted that the claim is statute-barred, and I ordered that the question whether it is indeed statute-barred should be determined on the basis of written representations as a preliminary issue.  I have received written representations on the part of the acquiring authority and from Paul Jackson FRICS, the claimant’s agent.

2.           In their representations the acquiring authority set out the sequence of events and exhibit the relevant documents.  The sequence is this:

(a)         The CPO was confirmed on 14 May 2003.

(b)        On 5 September 2003 the acquiring authority published notice of confirmation of the CPO in the local press, including preliminary notice of the intention to make a general vesting declaration.  The notice was served on Brian W Smith, the claimant’s late husband.

(c)         On 12 February 2004 the acquiring authority made a general vesting declaration under section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, specifying that the land would vest in the acquiring authority 28 days from the date on which the service of notices required by section 6 of the Act was complete..

(d)        On 3 March 2004 the acquiring authority gave notice of the execution of the general vesting declaration pursuant to section 6.  It was delivered by hand to Mr Smith at 15 Woods lane, Quarry Bank, Brierley Hill, West Midlands DY5 2QU, his last known address.

(e)         On 17 March 2004 a certificate was signed on behalf of the acquiring authority that the service of notices required by section 6 had been completed on 3 March 2004.

(f)          By letter to Mr Smith dated 17 March 2004 the acquiring authority enclosed a copy of the certificate and stating that the vesting date was, therefore 31 March 2004.

(g)         In a letter dated 18 March 2010 addressed to the Lands Tribunal at Procession House, 55 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7JW, Mrs Linda Stevens, secretary of the Warley Freeholders Association and the sister of Mr Smith, said that she enclosed notice of reference signed by the claimant.

(h)         On 21 April 2010 Mr Jackson wrote to the Registrar saying that he had sent an application to the Tribunal on 23 March, which had been returned to him, Mr Jackson, that day, 21 April, as it had been sent to the Tribunal’s old address in error. It enclosed a copy of an envelope stamped “Royal Mail” with the date 26 March 2010 and marked “addressee gone away”.

3.           Section 10(3) of the Act as amended provides as follows:

“The time within which a question of disputed compensation arising out of an acquisition of an interest in landing respect of which a Notice to Treat is deemed to have been served by virtue of Part III of the Act may be referred to the Upper Tribunal shall be six years from the date on which the person claiming compensation, or a person under whom he derives title, first knew, or could reasonably have been expected to have known of the vesting of the interest by virtue of Part III of is Act.”

4.           The acquiring authority contend that the claimant knew of the vesting of the interest by virtue of the fact that in the notice of reference it was sated that possession had been taken on 31 March 2004.  The claimant could only have obtained knowledge of that date from the letter sent to Mr Smith on 17 March 2004 enclosing the certificate under section 6.  Moreover Mrs Stevens’s letter to the Tribunal was headed “CPO by Sandwell MBC in respect of former Thimblemill Lane Allotments, Smethwick, West Midlands on the 31/3/04”.  It was clear from Mr Jackson’s letter dated 21 April 2010 that the notice of reference could not have been received by the Tribunal until 22 April 2010.  The notice of reference is, therefore, it is said, statute-barred by reason of it not having been made before 31 March 2010.

5.           The written representations received from Mr Jackson are directed solely to the subject-matter of the claim and its merits.  They do not touch on the preliminary issue.

6.           In the light of this I am satisfied that Mr Smith, from whom the claimant derives title, received notification of the general vesting declaration and the acquiring authority’s letter of 17 March 2004.  Thus he first knew on 31 March 2004 of the vesting of his interest in the council on that date.  Under rule 10(1) of the Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 as amended (the rules that were in force in March and April 2010) notice of reference had to be sent to the Registrar.  Necessarily that meant sent to him at the Tribunal’s address.  Notice of reference sent to the wrong address and, for that reason, not received by the Registrar, would not have complied with this rule.  The notice of reference sent by Mrs Stevens was not received by the Tribunal.  The notice of reference sent by Mr Jackson was not sent until 21 April 2010.  It was received by the Tribunal on 23 April 2010.  It was, therefore, out of time.

7.           This conclusion that the reference is statute-barred disposes of the reference, which is accordingly dismissed.

Dated 16 June 2011

 

George Bartlett QC, President

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/LC/2011/ACQ_395_2010.html