A resident leading the campaign to save a block of houses from demolition has received a body-blow from the High 
Court.
Eve Maley received the formal judgement – which may force her to throw in the towel ““ yesterday, nearly six months after the last hearing.
After years of battling to save her and neighbouring residents’ houses, which they maintain are in good shape, from destruction, this could spell the end of the line, since a final appeal would cost another £15,000 on top of tens of thousands already spent.
The whole dispute emerged when Stoke-on-Trent City Council investigated a minority of the houses which were in a bad state of repair, but ended up condemning the entire section of Eaton Street, which overlooks Northwood Park, issuing Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) to acquire the properties.
And although there was once a squadron of homeowners willing to stake their claim to their own land and fight for the cause, many have since left, resigned to the fact that they were fighting a losing battle.
Eve has always said that she would not be moved, determined that the council would not take her house against her will. But now, even she is beaten down by the way things have turned out. She said:
“It’s another £15,000 and what’s the point when it’s going to be another two years to find out the same thing. It doesn’t seem to matter what we do. It’s not right, but what choice is there?
“I’ve only got one option and that’s to risk all that money, and we’re pensioners.
“This has been going on for five years, and now my immediate neighbour is moving, leaving just four of us. It’s like everything is fragmented.”
If she and the rest of the residents do end up accepting that this is their fate, Eve asserts that they will not be ousted cheaply. She said that the council has a ring-fenced fund of £1¾ million to acquire the land, and so she believes remaining residents should be given the value of their properties before the case began, considering the hardship and heartache that has been caused.
But the council has recently offered one of Eve’s neighbours, Betty Reynolds, aged 69, £80 thousand for her property which two years ago was valued at £120k by Quigleys Estate Agents. Eve said:
“Now they are saying the price has dropped. That’s just ridiculous.
“Well they won’t get mine for that. It’s a three-bedroom with a garage. I still have the council’s own valuation of £112 thousand.”
By Matt Taylor 03/02/09
To quote Eve ; “Well they won’t get mine for that. It’s a three-bedroom with a garage. I still have the council’s own valuation of £112 thousand.”Â
Then surely your legal consul should stick out for the 112k and the council themselves honour this valuation? To do otherwise would be surely illegal to change the price once a valuation has been made. Simply because the court case and proceedings have dragged on and prices dropped should not allow the authority to drop its price. That would in my opinion not only be unlawful but immoral?
I think you will find that the council only has to pay whatever the house is currently worth.
Unless you can claim that the drop in value was due to the demolishion work and not because house values have dropped.
Mark, But surely you are given a price that must be vaild for a period of time to allow legal consultation and due process to be undertaken? everyone knows that High Court proceddings can potentially take years so the price i assume should take account for variations in the market over that time.
Obviously ojnce an estate agent is aware that the house is to be demolished he could say its worth nowt if he worked for the council or hundreds of thousands if he worked for the householder.
David
Offer stands for 6 months I believe but after that it can go up or down
David, it was Eve’s choice to go to the courts, a potential drop in the house price in the meanwhile is always a possibility.
Note that this goes two ways, if we were in the middle of a boom and not a bust Eve would be able to ask the council to re-assess her increased value.
I know it doesn’t seem right in the individual circumstances, but that’s how it is.
I have to say I have a fundamental problem with the idea of Compulsary Purchase Orders in the first place. Is this the instrument of some totalitarian communist state? We’re into the realm of ‘great plans’ and socialist utopias with that one. Not the sort of instrument that a so called liberal democracy should be wielding, surely?
At the height of the boom I often wondered if house prices had shot up so much that you could compulsary purchase an area that is half derelict, completely demolish and rebuild, but then effectly offer the original permenent residents (not the empty house owners) the new house that bears their old address for (on paper) whatever had been offered during the compulsary purchase order…
Ok, I bet the figures wouldn’t add up, and certainly not now boom is over…
The issue here is not whether the price of the property has increased or decreased, but that of CPOs themselves. If anyone in this country believes we have private property rights then they are wrong. For Government to say they are to purchase one’s property, often at a figure the property owner thinks is too low and which will not enable them to purchase a similar property, smacks of a totalitarianism (spot on Shaun).
Of course, if a building is dangerous and is likely to fall on peoples’ heads or damage someone else’s property then their is an argument for CPOs (and then chase the owner of the CPO’ed property to recoup costs), but to forcibly take someone’s home from them that they’ve invested time and money in is just plain wrong.
As part of the Stoke Area of Major Intervention plans, I stated eighteen months ago that I wouldn’t endorse or support CPOs. Instead, I want to see negotiation over selling prices to help find the ‘true’ market value of properties. After all, the true market price of something is where the vendor pushes for the highest price of a product and the purchaser tries to get it at the lowest price. At the point where both agree upon the price, that is the market value. If one or the other doesn’t agree upon the price, there is no sale.
CPOs don’t work like this of course. If the homeowner doesn’t like the price, then tough, the State will purchase your home anyway and you’ll get what you’re given you little serf. Clearly this isn’t ethical, unless you’re a Statist who fervently adheres to the ‘greater good’ principle – that is, until you find that someone knocks on your door issuing you a CPO, or any other diktat that you don’t agree with. In these cases, the ‘greater good’ advocates almost always change their tune.
I second that Gavin.
I’ll second you to on that one Gavin, if Eve’s home, and it is her home, is woth £112, and even in this market, in good nik with 3 bedrooms and a garage, it is, and shes happy with that then the council sould pay the woman, and help her to get a new home. Whats all this six month stuff Mr. Ibbs, if the council have valued it at £112k, they pay that amount.
Warren
If the figure has to be abided with come what may then what do you say if the value goes up. Does the council
stick to the lower figure? Of course not.
I am not saying I would agree with offering a lower figure but that is the position in law.