Vara v Bolton MBC
Vara v Bolton MBC
- 1991
- Rating & Valuation Reporter (1991) 31 RVR 98-100(3) .
LT 25 March 1991. The issue before the LT was whether the claimant V was entitled to an owner-occupier supplement under Housing Act 1969 s68 with compensation of £6,000, on receipt of a compulsory purchase order . The qualifying period was two years previous to 15 July 1986. The premises had been included in a clearance area declared on that date and a cpo was made on 4 November 1987 and confirmed on 2 November 1988. The property was purchased in 1969 and occupied by V, his wife and son. In 1984 the son moved away. Due to ill health V`s wife also moved to the son`s house in 1985. V changed his address on his pension book to that of his son. During the period in question the premises remained fully furnished and the rates, gas and electricity were paid by V. V claimed he had slept at the premises 3-4 times a week as he knew about the cpo and wished to qualify for the supplement. There was no intention to sell the property and it was never put on the market. LT held in favour of V.
ENTITLEMENT
LANDS TRIBUNAL DECISION
UNFIT HOUSES
LT 25 March 1991. The issue before the LT was whether the claimant V was entitled to an owner-occupier supplement under Housing Act 1969 s68 with compensation of £6,000, on receipt of a compulsory purchase order . The qualifying period was two years previous to 15 July 1986. The premises had been included in a clearance area declared on that date and a cpo was made on 4 November 1987 and confirmed on 2 November 1988. The property was purchased in 1969 and occupied by V, his wife and son. In 1984 the son moved away. Due to ill health V`s wife also moved to the son`s house in 1985. V changed his address on his pension book to that of his son. During the period in question the premises remained fully furnished and the rates, gas and electricity were paid by V. V claimed he had slept at the premises 3-4 times a week as he knew about the cpo and wished to qualify for the supplement. There was no intention to sell the property and it was never put on the market. LT held in favour of V.
ENTITLEMENT
LANDS TRIBUNAL DECISION
UNFIT HOUSES