The goverment has published its reponses to the 'Consultation on further reform of the compulsory purchase system' that ended in May of this year.
Importantly, it seems likely to press ahead with the change to the balance of compensation between landlord and occupier.
The original consultation document stated:
Reverse loss payment share for landlords and occupiers
33. Sections 33A-33F of the Land Compensation Act 1973 provide for loss payments to be made to owners and occupiers of land to be compulsorily acquired. These payments are in acknowledgement of the fact that a party is displaced from property against their will. Under the current rules, the owners of the land are likely to receive more compensation than the occupiers. The government considers that this is unfair as it is the occupier who bears the burden of having to close down or relocate their business operation and incurs the greater cost.
34. The consultation sought views on amending the current rules to adjust the balance of loss payments in favour of occupiers. ... Under current arrangements, the split between the landlord and occupier is 7.5% and 2.5% respectively, meaning that if the property is unoccupied the landlord receives a basic loss adjustment of 7.5%. The consultation suggested reversing this, so that the landlord of an empty property would only receive 2.5%, making CPO of eyesore properties more feasible for local authorities. The consultation responses (one of which came from the Empty Homes Network) was broadly in favour of the change and the government concluded: 39. The government will take forward the proposal to adjust the balance of loss payments in favour of the occupier as set out in the consultation. We have however, noted the comments about reviewing the caps associated with loss payments and we will consider these further as we develop this proposal. (p.10) Some of those consulted suggested that the caps were too low or that a more equitable arrangement would be a 50-50 split, so there is still a battle to be won. For our part, we have argued that with 'anti-social properties' such as long-term eyesores there should be no basic loss adjustment at all, and we will attempt to make this point to the goverment should the opportunity present itself. Currently, the compensation may not be given if the property is subject to certain enforcement orders but if the enforcement orders are complied with, or the council does the works in default, the compensation becomes payable once more. Councils may find that there is an outstanding order at the time of the CPO but the situation is hit and miss and attempts to manipulate it are not appropriate: the regulations should recognise the inequity of communities paying any compensation beyond the value of a property to owners who have blighted their neighbourhoods. You can find the government response via our Information Library here.
33. Sections 33A-33F of the Land Compensation Act 1973 provide for loss payments to be made to owners and occupiers of land to be compulsorily acquired. These payments are in acknowledgement of the fact that a party is displaced from property against their will. Under the current rules, the owners of the land are likely to receive more compensation than the occupiers. The government considers that this is unfair as it is the occupier who bears the burden of having to close down or relocate their business operation and incurs the greater cost.
34. The consultation sought views on amending the current rules to adjust the balance of loss payments in favour of occupiers. ... Under current arrangements, the split between the landlord and occupier is 7.5% and 2.5% respectively, meaning that if the property is unoccupied the landlord receives a basic loss adjustment of 7.5%. The consultation suggested reversing this, so that the landlord of an empty property would only receive 2.5%, making CPO of eyesore properties more feasible for local authorities. The consultation responses (one of which came from the Empty Homes Network) was broadly in favour of the change and the government concluded: 39. The government will take forward the proposal to adjust the balance of loss payments in favour of the occupier as set out in the consultation. We have however, noted the comments about reviewing the caps associated with loss payments and we will consider these further as we develop this proposal. (p.10) Some of those consulted suggested that the caps were too low or that a more equitable arrangement would be a 50-50 split, so there is still a battle to be won. For our part, we have argued that with 'anti-social properties' such as long-term eyesores there should be no basic loss adjustment at all, and we will attempt to make this point to the goverment should the opportunity present itself. Currently, the compensation may not be given if the property is subject to certain enforcement orders but if the enforcement orders are complied with, or the council does the works in default, the compensation becomes payable once more. Councils may find that there is an outstanding order at the time of the CPO but the situation is hit and miss and attempts to manipulate it are not appropriate: the regulations should recognise the inequity of communities paying any compensation beyond the value of a property to owners who have blighted their neighbourhoods. You can find the government response via our Information Library here.