Image from Google Jackets

Singh v Rochdale MBC

Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1993) 65 PCR 75-84(6)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: LT 10 August 1992. Several items of compensation were agreed concerning the compulsory purchase of a long leasehold in a two storey building occupied at the material date as a shop with living accommodation however other items remained outstanding and were refered to the LT. They concerned the dates on which the property was vested in the acquiring authority, on which the compensation fell to be assessed and from which interest was payable on the compensation money; the extend to which interest from a bridging loan made necessary by the loss of the property should be off set against the statutory interest payable and the amount of compensation for loss of profit. A vesting declaration was made on 8 November 1988 and the authority took possession on 26 May 1989. S claimed that as the 28 day period of notice referred to in the notice expired on 7 December that was the date on which the property was vested in the authority. The authority claimed that a series of notices had been issued
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS48199 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 65430-1001

LT 10 August 1992. Several items of compensation were agreed concerning the compulsory purchase of a long leasehold in a two storey building occupied at the material date as a shop with living accommodation however other items remained outstanding and were refered to the LT. They concerned the dates on which the property was vested in the acquiring authority, on which the compensation fell to be assessed and from which interest was payable on the compensation money; the extend to which interest from a bridging loan made necessary by the loss of the property should be off set against the statutory interest payable and the amount of compensation for loss of profit. A vesting declaration was made on 8 November 1988 and the authority took possession on 26 May 1989. S claimed that as the 28 day period of notice referred to in the notice expired on 7 December that was the date on which the property was vested in the authority. The authority claimed that a series of notices had been issued