Lands Tribunal for Scotland


Compensation – Compulsory Acquisition – Single lock-up Garage – Part of Larger Scheme involving other Lock-ups – Acquiring Authority relied on other sales in immediate locality and prices paid for other lock-ups in same Scheme of Acquisition – Claimant contended no lock-ups available – submitted comparisons from a much wider geographical area – looked at levels of rent required for similar lock-ups – Land Compensation (Scotland) Act – S.12, Rule 2

Callum Stewart Macfarlane v North Lanarkshire Council
27 October 2011

The subjects compulsorily acquired were a single lock-up garage, part of a short terrace of similar units. There were other similar terraces of lock-ups elsewhere in the close vicinity. There was sales evidence from these other localities. The vesting date was February 2009. The Acquiring Authority had agreed the compensation level for several other lock ups which were part of the overall scheme of redevelopment. Their offer of compensation was based on the open market prices in the immediate area and the compensation settlements reached with other parties. The Claimant was unable to find an alternative unit. He had looked at the levels of rent being sought for similar lock-ups and these rents justified a higher capital value than that offered. There was also evidence of much higher prices and rents elsewhere in the UK. The most recent lock-up to come on to the market in the immediate vicinity had a higher asking price than that offered by the Acquiring Authority.

Held, that the acquiring Authority’s approach was the correct one. There was a sufficiency of sale price evidence from the open market in the immediate vicinity which enabled the compensation to be assessed under Rule 2 of the Act, “open market value”. The compensation levels agreed in respect of the other units acquired as part of the scheme also supported the level of compensation offered albeit that this body of evidence was of somewhat lesser weight than the open market sales evidence. The use of asking prices and rents from other parts of the country was inappropriate and un-necessary when appropriate local evidence existed. The most recent unit available in the area, for which a higher asking price was being sought, seemed to be a larger one as it was advertised as being suitable for a 4x4 vehicle. It was also said to be suitable for furniture storage, the indication thus being that it was dry.

Based on the appropriate evidence available compensation of £1,300 was awarded as at the vesting date of February 2009. There had been no claim proffered under Rule 6 of the Act and no award was made under this heading.

Authorities referred to:-


See full decision:  LTS/COMP/2011/02