|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Patel & Anor v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council  EWCA Civ 1810 (25 November 2002)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 1810
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE LANDS TRIBUNAL
Monday, 25th November 2002
B e f o r e :
|(1) PRABHUHAI PATEL|
|(2) MANUBHAI PATEL||Claimants/Applicants|
|WALSALL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL||Defendant/Respondent|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondent did not appear and was unrepresented.
Crown Copyright ©
Monday, 25th November 2002
"36. The evidence relating to asking prices from local newspapers introduced by the claimant was not conclusive and I cannot attach any weight to it as evidence of actual transactions. Most of the advertisements for similar style properties at prices of £13,500 and upwards appeared to me to be for those which had been fully modernised, with central heating and proper bathrooms, but as I have said, there was no evidence of actual sales, or as to comparability of locations.
37. Doing the best that I can therefore, I conclude that on the balance of probabilities there was little between values in Princes Street and Ford Street at the relevant date, and the settlement evidence from 1979 and 1982 referred to by Mr Compson shows little evidence of a major boom in house prices over that period. With no transactional evidence from around the relevant date forthcoming from Mr Wadsworth, I accept Mr Compson's evidence and his statement that in valuing the property he took no account of any detrimental effect of the adjacent scrapyard, or any additional dampness resulting from the damage to the adjoining property.
38. I also take into account the photographic evidence from 1980 and 1982 from which it is evident that the property was, overall, in poor condition with little sign of any maintenance. Whilst I accept that the internal photographs taken 4 days after the house was vacated show signs that some vandalism might have occurred, it is clear to me that it was in very poor decorative order and basic in terms of fixtures and fittings. Finally, I accept that an internal inspection was undertaken at the claimants' request in October 1982 and again, from the copy file notes it is evident that the house needed much work to bring it up to an acceptable modern standard."