Welsh council defeats challenge to compulsory purchase of house empty since 1994
City and County of Cardiff Council did not breach the Equality Act 2010, when it issued a compulsory purchase order for a house owned by a former council building surveyor.
In Foley v The County Council of the City And County of Cardiff [2020] EWHC 2182 (Admin) HHJ Jarman rejected the case brought by David Foley, concluding that none of the grounds argued were valid.
Cardiff had found the home had been empty since 1994 and protracted disputes over whether and how bringing it back into use had proven fruitless.
The council said it had become unsuitable for occupation and was deteriorating though lack of maintenance, causing nuisance to neighbouring properties and detriment to amenities.
Mr Foley challenged the compulsory purchase order under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.
HHJ Jarman said: “The essence of the claimant's challenge is that in deciding to make the order, the council did not properly take into account that he has been suffering from chronic depression and anxiety for several years.
“The medical evidence filed in this appeal shows that this means he has low energy levels and has difficulty in dealing with day to day activities, difficulties with concentration and social functioning, and needs help to manage his affairs.”
It was not disputed that these conditions were real or that Cardiff did not assess Mr Foley’s disabilities or how they impacted his ability to deal with the property.
An email from a council officer noted: “I did not consider that [Mr Foley’s] personal problems prevented him from engaging with the process leading up to the making and confirmation of the order, the possibility of which had first been raised as long ago as 2012”.
HHJ Jarman said: “In my judgement…the council did make reasonable adjustments. The making of such an order was first mooted in 2012, but the claimant raised his disabilities then and again in 2013, 2014 and 2017. The council took these into account and did not progress the procedure until 2018.”
He said Cardiff had been entitled to conclude the real reason for lack of progress was Mr Foley’s lack of funds and that that was unlikely to be resolved within a reasonable time, not least as the house was an investment property that had produced no income for 26 years.
He also dismissed arguments of procedural unfairness and human rights and ruled: “the order was in the public interest and in accordance with the stringent requirements for making such an order”.
Mark Smulian
