000			01927cab a2200181 4500
001			##L133070
008			060407n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u133070
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aJoyce v St Albans D C
260			_c2006
490		0	_aRating and Valuation Reporter _v2006, 106-112(7)
520			_aACQ/51/2004, 28 September 2005. Claimant (J) sought compensation for a freehold dwelling house which was compulsorily purchased by the council (S). In 1998 J had received a renovation grant for the property, one of the conditions of which was that works had to be completed within 12 months. Although this time limit was later extended, S eventually acquired the house compulsorily, and sold the property in two lots. J assessed the value of the property in its dilapidated condition as £270 000, as opposed to S's figure of £218 000, and also contended that, under the Land Compensation Act 1961, s9, she was entitled to the difference between the value of the property in a refurbished condition and that in its actual state, or alternatively compensation in the amount of the renovation grant which she would have received had the property not been compulsorily purchased. "Held" J was entitled to compensation of £240 000 (reasons given); the claim under the Land Compensation Act was dismissed as from the evidence and correspondence J had been unable to prove her contention that the property would have been in good condition at the valuation date had S complied with its obligations; her alternative contention was also rejected as there was no evidence to support the claim that she would eventually have received a grant had the compulsory purchase not gone ahead. A claim for home loss payment was also rejected.
650	2	4	_aJOYCE V ST ALBANS DC
650	2	4	_aLAND COMPENSATION ACT 1961
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY VALUATION AND APPRAISAL-COMPENSATION VALUATION
942			_n0
999			_c76789 _d76789