BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Land Registry Adjudicator |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Land Registry Adjudicator >> London Borough of Wandsworth v (1) Claude Rapose (2) Cyril Rapose (3) Brendan Anthony Rapose (4) Peter De Souza (5) Brian Rapose (6) Antonio Flavias Gracias (7) Sajid Haq (8) Marion Scullion (Compulsory Purchase : General Vesting Declaration) [2008] EWLandRA 2007_0167 (01 April 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLandRA/2008/2007_0167.html Cite as: [2008] EWLandRA 2007_0167, [2008] EWLandRA 2007_167 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
REF/2007/0167/0169/0171/0173/0266/0269
The Adjudicator to Her majesty’s Land Registry
LAND Registration act 2002
IN the matter of a reference from hm land registry
BETWEEN
APPLICANTS
and
(2) Cyril Rapose
(3) Brendan Anthony Rapose
(4) Peter De Souza
(5) Brian Rapose
(6) Antonio Flavias Gracias
(7) Sajid Haq
(8) Marion Scullion
RESPONDENTS
Property Address: Numbers 312 to 320 Earlsfield Road, London
Title Number: LN79144, SGL347329, TGL36497, LN145323 and others
Before: Mr Cousins sitting as The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry
Applicant Representation: Mr Jonathan Ferris of Counsel’ instructed by ASB Law, for the Council
Respondent Representation: All in person
DECISION
KEYWORDS – compulsory purchase - Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 ss 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, Parts II and IV, Schedule 1; Acquisition of Land Act 1981 ss5, 11, 12, 13A, 15, 23, Part 2; Compulsory Purchase of Land (Vesting Declarations) Regulations 1990; Compulsory Purchase by Non-Ministerial Acquiring Authorities (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1990; Adjudicator to HM Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003 Rule 31; Land Registration Act 2002, ss3, 4(1)(a)(i), 29(2)(a)(ii), 30(2)(a)(ii), schedule 3, paragraph 2
1. On 4th October 2006 the London Borough of Wandsworth (“the Council”) applied to HM Land Registry in form AP1 (“the Application”) for registration as proprietor of certain land and premises at 302-320 Earlsfield Road, London SW18 (“the Properties”). This Application has arisen by virtue of a transfer effected by a General Vesting Declaration pursuant to the London Borough of Wandsworth 312/320 Earlsfield Road London SW18 Compulsory Purchase Order 2003 General Vesting Declaration (“the General Vesting Declaration”). This was made on 13th July 2006 pursuant to the provisions of section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (“the CP(VD)A 1981”). The Council submits that they have complied with all the requirements of that Act including the giving of appropriate notices required by section 3. The Council also submits that they had complied with the necessary procedures pursuant to of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (“the ALA 1981”).
2. There are a number of objectors to the Application the principal basis of the objections being that the Council has failed to serve the notices required by the appropriate legislation on those persons entitled to receive such notices. Further, it is asserted that the vesting of the properties in the Council is not itself legally justified.
3. The hearing of the trial of preliminary issues took place at Procession House on 18th January 2008 when I heard a number of submissions made by the parties or their representatives.
4. As the matter has a protracted and convoluted history it is necessary to have regard to the background to the current Application.
5. The Council was represented by Mr Jonathan Ferris of Counsel who has been involved with this matter for a number of years. A number of the named Respondents appeared at the hearing together with four persons who were not named as Respondents but who had made written representations to the Court. Counsel, Mr De Mello, represented one of these persons. The position as to the parties and non-parties was as follows:-
(1) Claude Rapose – a named Respondent. He was the principal advocate for the Respondents’ case and made a number of written and oral representations on his own behalf and on behalf of the named Respondents and others present and not present at the hearing.
(2) Cyril Rapose – a named Respondent.
(3) Brendan Anthony Rapose – a named Respondent but did not appear at the hearing.
(4) Peter De Souza – a named Respondent who did appear at the hearing. The Land Registry dismissed his objection to the Application at an earlier stage as being groundless. Subsequent to that dismissal he made a number of written representations to this Office which resulted in him being joined into the proceedings.
(5) Antonio Flavias Gracias – a named Respondent who appeared at the hearing. He was also joined into the proceedings on the same basis as Peter De Souza.
(6) Brian Rapose – a named Respondent who appeared at the hearing.
(7) Sajid Haq – a named Second Respondent who appeared at the hearing.
(8) Marion Scullion – a named Third Respondent who did not appear at the hearing.
(9) Sharon Rapose – she appeared at the hearing but was not a named Respondent. Counsel, Mr De Mello, represented her. I invited Counsel to make submissions on the question as to whether she wished to be joined in as a Respondent and after some discussion she decided that she did not. Mr De Mello’s presence was therefore somewhat superfluous (as he acknowledged), but I did permit him to make some limited submissions during the course of the proceedings.
(10) Thelma Rapose – made written representations but did not appear at the hearing.
(11) Jerome Mendes - made written representations but did not appear at the hearing.
(12) Herman Rodrigues - made written representations but did not appear at the hearing.
(13) Darryl Rodrigues - made written representations and was present at the hearing but played no part in the proceedings.
(14) A number of other persons were present during the course of the hearing who have been described as “observers” – namely Fiona Labo, A Pereira, and R Kerridge.
6. ASB Law (the Council’s solicitors) produced four lever arch files of documentation and two supplementary lever arch files with one sequence of pagination (“the Bundles”). These contained all the relevant documents upon which both sides relied. Mr Ferris also produced ring binders which contained extracts from the relevant statutes namely – the ALA 1981, the CP(VD)A 1981, the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Vesting Declarations) Regulations 1990 (“the 1990 Regulations”), and the Compulsory Purchase by Non-Ministerial Acquiring Authorities (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1990 (“the Rules”). I was also assisted by a comprehensive skeleton argument from Mr Ferris and oral submission made by him. I shall refer to various copy documents contained in the Bundles in this Decision, together with the relevant parts of the legislation to which I have referred above.
7. The named Respondents and the non-parties have made written representations prior to, during, and after the hearing. This has resulted in a considerable amount of further documentation being produced. I have taken all this documentation into account some of which is somewhat incomprehensible and much is largely repetitive. Oral representations were also made during the course of the hearing, principally by Claude Rapose. These submissions were also repetitive.
Written representations made by the Respondents
9. A schedule of written representations made by the Respondents some of which were received after the hearing. These are the following:-
Claude Rapose – 24th October 2007, 19th November 2007, and 14th January 2008
Cyril Rapose – 25th October 2007, 16th November 2007, 21st January 2008, and 22nd January 2008
Brendan Rapose – 23rd October 2007, and 23rd November 2007
Peter De Souza – 7th October 2007 (sent under cover of a letter dated 8th October 2007 from Claude Rapose), 5th November 2007 and 22nd November 2007
Brian Rapose – 20th November 2007
Antonio Flavias Gracias – 7th November 2007, 14th January 2008, and an enclosure sent by Claude Rapose under cover of a letter dated 14th January 2008 which refer to various documents produced by Mr Gracias, and 29th January 2008
Sajid Haq – 1st November 2007 and 22nd November 2007
Marion Scullion – 20th November 2007 and 9th January 2008.
Written representations from non-parties
10. A number of representations have also been received by this Office from non-parties, namely: -
Sharon Rapose - representations from Messrs Thompson & Co, her solicitors, dated 4th December 2007, and personally from her dated 6th November 2007 and 7th November 2007
Darryl Rodrigues - 7th November 2007, and 11th December 2007
Herman Rodrigues - 1st November 2007, and 21st November 2007
Jerome Mendes - 11th October 2007 (sent under cover of a letter from Claude Rapose dated 12th October 2007), 8th November 2007, 10th December 2007 and 8th January 2008
Thelma Rapose - 6th November 2007.
12. On 8th August 2003 the Council made the “London Borough of Wandsworth 312-320 Earlsfield Road, London SW18 Compulsory Purchase Order 2003” (“the CPO”) over the Properties. The Properties were controlled by members of the Rapose family (principally the twin brothers Claude and Cyril Rapose). The Council then embarked upon a process which eventually culminated in the transfer effected by the General Vesting Order.
13. The Properties originally comprised a terrace of buildings numbered 312, 314, 316, 318 and 320 Earlsfield Road. These more recently had become semi-derelict and unfit for human habitation. Numbers 312 and 314 had formerly been three storey residential and business use properties. These were demolished by the Council in 1989 following the service of a Dangerous Structure Notice on Mr Rapose who was apparently in control of these two buildings, but was not an owner. Numbers 316, 318 and 320 comprised three storey brick buildings with basements, which were demolished by the Council in late 2006 following the making of the General Vesting Declaration and the entry into possession by the Council.
14. On 28th September 2007 the Adjudicator identified a number of preliminary issues pursuant to the provisions of Rule 31 of the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003. A copy of this Order appears at 1/42 – 44 and the relevant part is paragraph 5 (at page 43). These issues are as follows:-
(i) Have the various Respondents standing in law to challenge the CPO?
(ii) Are the actions of the Council to make a CPO over the Properties lawful?
(iii) Was notice of the declarations under section 4 of the CP(VD)A 1981 dated 13th July 2007 validly served on the Respondents?
15. In order to understand the points being made by the Respondents and other non-parties it is necessary to have regard to the legislation and the procedural process followed by the Council as to the compulsory acquisition of the Properties. Although it is somewhat unclear there would appear to be two separate challenges with regard to the question of service namely, service of the original CPO and the stages prior thereto, and the service requirements surrounding the General Vesting Declaration and the statutory notices thereafter. A point which seems to have been lost sight of by the Respondents and other non-parties is that the purpose of this procedure is in order to invite objection from interested parties to the CPO for compensation claims.
The CPO procedure, the public local inquiry and subsequent confirmation
16. The CPO was made in July 2003. Following this in August 2003 the Council served a number of notices pursuant to section 12 of the ALA 1981. By virtue of section 12(2) the person to be served with a requisite notice in the prescribed form is a “qualifying person” as defined by subsection 2(a) and (b). In short, such a person is specified as being an owner, lessee, tenant, or occupier of the land, or a person upon whom the Council as the acquiring authority be required to give a notice to treat, or the person the acquiring authority thinks is likely to be entitled to make a relevant claim for compensation once the order is confirmed and the compulsory purchase takes place “… so far as he is known to the acquiring authority after making diligent enquiries.” It is apparent that the Council also advertised the CPO pursuant to the provisions of section 11 of the ALA 1981.
17. The Council has provided evidence of the following:-
(a) A copy of the notice and accompanying documentation – 2/53-166;
(b) The list of persons to be served – 2/167;
(c) The copies of the 61 covering letters – 2/173;
(d) The statements of service, which also set out an assault perpetrated by Claude and Cyril Rapose on the serving officer – 2/236 and 2/238;
(e) The advertisement in the local press – 2/235;
(f) The certificate of publication – 2/237.
18. Thereafter the Council submitted the CPO to the Government Office for London (“the GOL”) as the as the confirming authority, for confirmation pursuant to Part 2 of the ALA 1981. A number of objections to the CPO from “qualifying persons” were received and registered in response to the notices and advertisement. Such objections were then the subject of a public local inquiry convened by the GOL, pursuant to the provisions of section 5 and 13A of the ALA 1981 such inquiry being conducted by an inspector (“the Inspector”) appointed by the GOL.
19. That inquiry took place over the period of five days in September 2004 at Wandsworth Town Hall. The Inspector’s Report (“the Report”) to the Secretary of State appears at 1/1-21. This Report indicates that the Inspector recommended that the CPO be confirmed without modification. It is to be noted at this stage that during the course of the hearing, inter alia, a number of the Respondents in these proceedings and the other non-parties who have expressed an interest in these proceedings were present during the course of the public local inquiry. Ms Scullion and Mr Gracias were apparently not present at any stage. I shall refer to this aspect again below.
20. Following his receipt of the Report in December 2004 the GOL confirmed the CPO on 10th December 2004 (1/22). This letter of confirmation was then sent out on 10th December 2004 by the GOL to all the statutory objectors and to 428 non-statutory objectors whose objections were made on a standard form apparently provided by Mr Cyril Rapose (see 1/22-23, paragraphs 4 and 13). One of the issues raised in the case surrounds the temporary loss of these written objections.
21. As soon as the CPO had been confirmed the Council proceeded to acquire the Properties the subject of the CPO. In order to bring about that acquisition the Council was required to serve a confirmation notice and a copy of the order as confirmed on every qualifying person (see sections 12 and 15 of the ALA 1981). In addition the confirmation notice had to be published in a local newspaper and affixed to a conspicuous object or objects on or near the properties the subject of the CPO (see section 15).
22. The notice itself appears at 3/401, and the instructions to the process server appear at 3/403. Copies of the letters served appear at 3/405 ff and the letter from the process server confirming that service had been effected appears at 3/465 together with his witness statement at 3/467 and photographs at 3/471 ff. It is also to be noted that this notice also complies with the provisions of section 3 of the CP(VD)A 1981, and the obligation to serve a preliminary notice of an intention to make a General Vesting Declaration and the right of qualifying persons to apply for compensation in the event of such a declaration.
23. It is then possible for a person aggrieved by a CPO who desires to question the validity thereof or any provision contained therein to make an application to the Administrative Court within 6 weeks and/or to make an application for permission to seek judicial review of the decision to put the CPO into effect (see section 23 of the ALA 1981). The right to appeal the confirmation of the CPO arose on publication of the confirmation notice (see 1/26-35, and 1/38-39). It is contended by the Council that the notice of confirmation was effectively published on 17th March 2005 (3/401 ff). The validity of this is apparently challenged by the Respondents and other non-parties.
The appeal process
24. Within the time limit set for appeals four separate but identical statutory appeals were lodged together with four separate but identical applications for judicial review seeking to challenge the confirmation of the CPO in the Administrative Court. The names of the appellants were the following – Sajid Haq, Claude Rapose, Herman Rodrigues and Cyril Rapose. It will be noted that three out of the four of these appellants are also named Respondents in the proceedings before me. It is also to be noted that Collins J in the Administrative Court dismissed those appeals and applications on 18th October 2005 after hearing submissions from the persons present (see 1/29-30).
25. A copy of the judgment of Collins J dated 28th October 2005 is included in the documentation before me. The learned Judge at paragraphs 25 and 26 of his judgment deals with the complaints with regard to the lack of proper service by Claude Rapose and others. The matter with regard to the loss of a file by the GLO of 428 non-statutory objections is also referred to in his judgment and the way in which the Inspector dealt with that aspect appears at paragraphs 27-32. Collins J also refers to other paragraphs of the Inspector’s Report dealing with the issue of the inability of the objectors to demonstrate that they had clear and unfettered ownership and control of the Properties at paragraphs 34 and 35 referring to paragraphs 81, 82 and 86 of the Report. Crucially, at paragraph 36 the learned Judge held that the Inspector was entitled on the evidence before him to conclude the matter in the way that he did. In paragraph 39 he states that the matters raised by Claude Rapose and the other applicants did not amount to errors of law which would justify any relief being sought and in particular in allowing the reviews. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal.
26. The appellants subsequently sought re-open the judgement and order of Collins J and this was refused by Burton J on 17th February 2006 (see 1/32). Claude Rapose and Mr Cyril Rapose then sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal and this was refused by Keene LJ on 7th March 2006 (1/33 -34). A subsequent application for permission to present a Petition to the House of Lords was also dismissed on 4th April 2006 (1/38-39).
27. I should also mention that a Mr Ahmed was involved in subsequent proceedings in the Administrative Court in April 2006 (under reference CO/5712/2006) which were similar to proceedings also commenced there by Mr Gracias. The service issue was once again the theme. These proceedings (together with proceedings initiated by Mr Haq) were struck out by Calvert-Smith J and he dismissed the action in July 2007. In that action Mr Rapose sought to be joined as a claimant and also applied for an injunction to restrain demolition of the remaining Properties (3/510). That application was dismissed by his Honour Gilbart QC on 6th December 2006 (3/519 - 520). It is to be noted that Mr Ahmed was not present during the course of this hearing and was made by Claude Rapose in person. In paragraph 4 of the Order of Calvert-Smith J there is reference to the fact that application notices of Mr Ahmed were in fact signed by Mr Gracias on 28th September 2006 and Mr Haq on 29th September 2006. The learned judge also makes reference to the fact that these proceedings were attempts by Mr Rapose to continue litigation which had “run its course” - this conclusion being further supported “by the similarities in style and composition to that submitted by Mr Rapose”.
28. It is therefore somewhat difficult to see how it can be argued by Mr Gracias that he knew nothing about the circumstances surrounding the CPO and/or that there had been a failure of service during the procedural process.
29. Further it is to be noted that Mr Rapose issued a claim in the Queens Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in early 2006 which sought to challenge the CPO once again (see 1/36). Master Eyre stayed this challenge in April 2006 as the allegations were incomprehensible (1/40).
30. The CP(VD)A 1981 enables local authorities unilaterally to vest in themselves by a declaration land which they are authorised by a CPO to acquire. It is to be stated that this method of acquisition is advantageous since the vesting is not dependent upon the payment or deposit of compensation money which is settled subsequently. The form of a general vesting declaration is prescribed by the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Vesting Declarations) Regulations 1990. The procedure to be followed is set out in parts II and IV of, and schedule 1 to, the CP(VD)A 1981 and briefly comprises of the following stages:-
(a) the authority must in accordance with section 3 of that Act include in either the statutory notice of the confirmation of the CPO or in a subsequent notice (but before service of any notice to treat) –
(i) a warning that the general vesting declaration procedure is being adopted; and
(ii) a notification inviting all persons entitled to claim compensation to give particulars of their interests in the form prescribed.
The recitals to the general vesting declaration should confirm that this stage has been followed. The disjunctive “or” in sub-paragraph (a) above is to be noted in the context of this case.
(b) In accordance with the provisions of the CP(VD)A 1981 Act it is then necessary to comply with the terms of the section in that a declaration under section 4 “shall not be executed before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date of the first publication of the notice complying with section 3, or for such longer period, if any, as may be specified in the notice.” It can then execute a general vesting declaration in the form prescribed by the 1990 Regulations vesting the land comprised in the CPO in itself from the end of the period specified in the declaration.
(c) The period specified in the declaration must not be less than 28 days from the date on which the service of the further notice under section 6 of CP(VD)A 1981 is completed. This further notice under section 6 must specify the land and state the effect of the declaration and must be served as soon as possible after the declaration has been made, on the occupiers of the land and on all others persons claiming an interest in the land. A certificate by the authority that the service of section 6 notices was completed on a particular date is conclusive evidence of the facts stated (see section 4(2)).
31. Thus the effect of a general vesting declaration is that at the end of the period specified in the declaration all estates and interests in the land will vest in the authority as if it had executed a deed poll, which itself can be exercised in certain circumstances which are not relevant to the current position. A general vesting declaration operates as a transfer by operation of law and is therefore not compulsorily registrable under section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Land Registration Act 2002. It can however be the subject of a voluntary application for first registration under section 3 of that Act, which is the position in the present case.
32. In the present case the Council published and served the statutory notice of confirmation of the CPO in March 2005 (3/401-402). It is submitted by the Respondents that the requirements of section 3 were not complied with by so doing. The Council could have adopted an alternative procedure in respect of the notice required pursuant to section 3 of the CP(VD)A 1981 in that an acquiring authority may comply with the obligations to serve a preliminary notice in its statutory notice of confirmation, or in a notice given subsequently. The Council in the present case out of an abundance of caution decided to re-serve a section 3 notice of the effect of the general vesting declaration and the invitation to claim compensation. This the Council did in April 2006 and the second section 3 appears at 3/480. Also in the Bundles are the letters of instruction to the process server together with the list of names and addresses to be served (at 3/484-494), and the letter from the process server confirming that the job had been done at 3/504. Also included is the witness statement of the process server at 4/495.
33. It was then necessary to wait two months to comply with the provisions of section 5 of the CP(VD)A 1981. On 13th July 2006 the Council then executed the General Vesting Declaration (4/1144). It is submitted that the General Vesting Declaration complied with the provisions of section 4 of the CP(VD)A 1981 and was in the form prescribed by the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Vesting Declarations) Regulations 1990. The Properties then vested in the Council and provided the Council with the right to enter, but subject to the provisions of section 9.
34. Following this, and pursuant to the provisions of section 6 of the CP(VD)A 1981, relevant notices were served by a process server on 18th July 2006 (see 1/767ff). The statement by the process server appears at 1/765. Out of an abundance of caution, further section 6 notices were served on 19th and 20th September 2006. Thereafter on 19th September 2006 the notices to treat on every minor tenant or long tenancy was effected on 19th September 2006 (see the letter from the process server at 1/777, together with his witness statement at 1/779). Thereafter it was necessary for 14 days to expire before the Council could enter the Properties and take possession. A certificate by the authority that the service of section 6 notices was completed and, as I have stated above, is conclusive evidence of the facts stated.
35. On 29th September 2006 the Council gave notice of its intention to take possession of the Properties, which it did a few days later. In October 2006 the Council entered the Properties and took possession and the remaining three storey buildings were then demolished.
36. It is on the basis of what is submitted to be a validly executed General Vesting Declaration the service of which has been properly certified and the fact that the Properties vested in the Council as a result, the Council has made the application to be registered as proprietor.
THE DECISION
37. I now turn to the questions posed in the preliminary issues.
38. Having regard to paragraph 16 to 29, above, I find that there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the Respondents, or the non-parties, including Mr Gracias. In short, the matter is res judicata in that challenges have been made to the procedural process and it has been found by Collins J there was no material put before him which demonstrated any errors of law which would justify any relief being sought. The CPO was therefore validly made and confirmed and in my judgment is no longer susceptible to any form of challenge. Permission to appeal was refused both in the Administrative Court and subsequently in the Court of Appeal. A subsequent application to present a Petition to the House of Lords was also dismissed. Further attempts to challenge the efficacy of the CPO and the procedural process were subsequently dismissed by Calvert-Smith J.
39. Insofar as there may have been challenges to the General Vesting Declaration which was made subsequent to the Administrative Court hearing, I consider that the procedural process undertaken by the Council insofar as the General Vesting Declaration was concerned was validly made. I refer to paragraphs 30 to 36, above. I should state that it is unclear whether the Respondents are in fact challenging this process, but on the assumption that there is such a challenge then I find that the Properties vested in the Council following service of the appropriate notices on every occupier and on every other person who gave information in response to the previous invitations made in March 2005 and April 2006. It is abundantly clear that those notices were not only served on those persons purportedly falling within the categories set out in Section 6 of the CP(VD)A 1981, the evidence reveals that they were also served on a considerable body of other persons in an exercise conducted by process servers on behalf of the Council. The service of the section 6 notices was certified by the Council.
40. Further, and in any event, the general vesting declaration procedure is not concerned with the validity of the original CPO, but is a procedural process which results in the vesting of the Properties in the Council and provides any qualifying person with the right to claim compensation. I also re-iterate that a certificate by the authority that the service of section 6 notices was completed is conclusive evidence of the facts stated. This process is therefore also unchallengeable in my judgment.
41. Again, I find that the actions of the Council making the CPO over the Properties and the subsequent General Vesting Declaration were lawful. I repeat the point made above, that Collins J dismissed the challenges made to the process by some of the Respondents in the present case and the subsequent applications for permission to appeal were also dismissed. Other subsequent attempts to challenge the CPO by various parties have similarly been dismissed.
42. As has been set out above, the General Vesting Declaration was executed on 13th July 2006. I am satisfied on the evidence that it was served on such occupiers of any parts of the land as were known to the Council, the Council having made reasonable enquiry. It was served on the “occupiers” of each part of the Properties pursuant to section 6(4) of the ALA 1981. It was also served on all those who had responded to the express invitation to do so in March 2005 and in April 2006. Six of the Respondents were served by name and address and four of them are members of the same family. The remaining two Respondents (Ms Scullion and Mr Gracias) were served as “occupiers” at the Properties.
43. For the sake of completeness I turn to the specific issues raised by Mr Gracias. The details of these claims have never been substantiated nor indeed has any evidence been provided of the alleged agreement permitting him to store goods in parts of the Properties. In any event the fact that goods are stored does not, in my judgment, provide a sufficient interest to enable him to claim compensation for loss of an interest arising from compulsory purchase.
44. I appreciate that Mr Gracias did not attend the public local inquiry in 2004, nor did he play any part in the appeal before Collins J. However, it is reasonably clear that Mr Gracias was in contact with Claude Rapose and was aware of the circumstances surrounding the CPO. I have referred above to the initiated proceedings by him in the Administrative Court in 2006 apparently similar to proceedings commenced by Mr Ahmed (under reference CO/5712/2006) which (together with proceedings initiated by Mr Haq) were struck out by Calvert-Smith J in July 2007.
45. As to the complaint made my Mr Gracias that the Council had not complied with the notice provisions pursuant to section 6 of the ALA 1981, the reason why Mr Gracias’ name was not specifically included was that he had never notified the Council of any interest in response to either of the section 3 notices requesting details of claims by interested parties which had been served in March 2005 and April 2006. It is to be noted that Mr Ahmed put in his response on 30th June 2006 and he subsequently received a section 6 notice.
46. In addition to serving all known or reputed occupiers and lessees of the Properties, it is clear that the Council also served by hand delivery to the Properties on “the occupier” and “the lessee of the premises” the requisite notices, and also, as the evidence reveals, fixed such notices to the Properties themselves. The details of the notices were also advertised in the newspapers, in accordance with the provisions of section 6.
47. In such circumstances, there is no merit in any of the points made by Mr Gracias, not least by reason of the fact that, for the reasons stated above, the matter has been the subject of challenge in the High Court, and beyond, the result of which was that it has been held that the CPO was validly made and confirmed.
48. Thus, I find that there is no merit in the cases presented by the Respondents and the other non-parties (who have made written submissions) in opposition to the Application made by the Council to be registered as the proprietor of the Properties. I trust that this will conclude this protracted, convoluted and costly series of challenges made by the Respondents and others over several years.
49. Clearly, in the circumstances, costs should follow the event and I invite written submissions to be made by the Council and the Respondents as to whether such order should be made on an indemnity or standard basis.
50. I shall therefore make the appropriate direction to the Chief Land Registrar giving effect to the original application.
Dated this 18th day of February 2008
By Order of The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry
