Pepper (UK) Limited v Burnley Borough Council

32. I am satisfied from the evidence of correspondence between the acquiring authority and the interested party that she has chosen not to engage further in the negotiation of compensation.

33. I am satisfied that the claimant has made a valid reference under section 15(1) of the Act and that under section 15(2) of the Act the compensation I determine should be paid to it in part satisfaction of the interested party’s mortgage debt secured against the property.

34. In consideration of the valuation evidence, and the statement by the claimant that it does not dispute the amount of compensation proposed by the authority’s expert, I determine that the compensation shall be £20,000 plus statutory interest from the date of valuation.

35. I have not received submissions regarding entitlement to a basic loss payment under section 33 A of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (“ the 1973 Act ”) at 7.5% of the value of the interest. I note that in its letter to the interested party of 4 June 2019 the acquiring authority made an offer of £20,000 in compensation for the value the property and in addition a basic loss payment at 7.5% of that amount. It was explained in Pramar v The London Borough of Barnet [2015] UKUT 0510 (LC) at paragraph [46] that under section 33 E of the 1973 Act a claim for a basic loss payment must be made in writing to the acquiring authority.

36. No claim for a basic loss payment has been made so I can make no award of one. It remains open for the interested party to make such a claim.

37. This decision is final on all matters save costs. A letter on costs accompanies this decision. Mrs Diane Martin MRICS FAAV Dated: 27 October 2020