Tsao v Secretary of State for the Environment and another

Application to quash CPO — Applicant alleging that intention of statutory provisions not to dispossess owner/occupiers — Applicant also alleging premises were not vacant — Applicant refusing to attend public inquiry — Whether local authority and Secretary of State acting within their powers — Whether findings of fact to be aired at public inquiry — Application refusedThe applicant was the owner of 27 Warwick Road, London SW5. In 1993 a draft CPO order was made under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985. Previous to that date, the defendant local authority had issued various notices under the Housing Acts 1957 and 1961 relating to the property’s condition and the repairs required. An earlier CPO had been withdrawn so that the applicant could enter into an arrangement for repair, but no such arrangement had been entered into. The applicant objected to the draft order and, notwithstanding that the Department of Environment regarded the letter as being out of time, they treated the letter as a statutory objection to the CPO. They notified the applicant that they intended to proceed with a public inquiry. The applicant replied that the CPO was null and void, that he was an owner occupier and that the local authority were seeking to harass him. A public inquiry was held although the applicant failed to attend. The inspector reported that: there was considerable need for accommodation within the borough; the local authority regarded that the premises should be brought back into residential use as soon as possible; and compulsory purchase was the most appropriate method to use. After several unsuccessful access attempts, council officers entered by warrant of entry and found the premises in substantial disrepair, with only the basement occupied by a tenant and the applicant not in residence. The inspector decided that the current state of the property was a waste of a valuable resource and that there was little likelihood that the owner would improve and fully reoccupy within a reasonable time scale. The Secretary of State accepted the inspector’s findings of fact and considered the allegations of harassment and abuse of power made by the applicant. He considered that it was right in all the circumstances that he confirmed the CPO. Held The application to quash was refused. 1. Under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985, the local authority had power to acquire “houses or buildings which may be made suitable as houses”. The applicant had argued that that section was not intended to permit the dispossession of owner occupiers and that the CPO was invalid as the premises were not vacant. 2. However, it was not a legal requirement of the section that the land, houses or buildings under consideration had to be vacant. 3. Further there was not a prohibition on acquisition if there was an owner occupier or an owner in residence; the applicant’s arguments on section 17 and on vacancy were untenable. 4. The inspector had treated the house as partly occupied and had taken account of the applicant’s contentions. However, matters of judgment and weight were for the decision maker. 5. The applicant had failed to attend the public inquiry at which he could have raised issues of fact which he now sought to raise. He had been treated as a statutory objector and had been given ample time to prepare his case. He had turned his back on the inquiry which was the proper tribunal of fact thereby becoming author of his own misfortune. The applicant appeared in person; David Elvin (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Geoffrey Stephenson (instructed by the solicitor to Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough) appeared for the local housing authority.