Aberdeen City Council made a deeply concerning decision to demolish the homes of nearly 150 people due to the presence of Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) in their buildings. The council has proposed compensating these homeowners with only the current market value of their properties, which is expected to be significantly lower than the values before RAAC was identified. Moreover, the council is deducting up to £70,000 for roof repairs, impacting homes that the council itself built and later sold off to unsuspecting ex-council tenants. These tenants, in turn, sold these properties to other unsuspecting buyers. As a result, a legal strategy is being developed, potentially involving litigation.
In response, the UK RAAC Campaign Group is actively consulting with legal professionals to explore a class action lawsuit. Mr. Wilson Chowdhry has outlined key legal aspects for discussion with a solicitor, which include:
Wednesbury Unreasonableness: This principle argues that the council's decision is irrational or unreasonable to the extent that no reasonable authority would have made the same decision. This may include examining whether the council has acted within its powers and whether the decision to demolish homes and offer below-market compensation was made with due consideration of all relevant factors.
Estoppel or Law of Bar: Under the Right-to-Buy scheme, the council sold these properties to tenants with the expectation that they were fit for habitation and without defects like RAAC. If it can be established that the council knew or should have known about the RAAC issues at the time of sale, this could invoke the principles of estoppel, preventing the council from denying liability for the defects and the associated depreciation in property value.
Latent Defects: If evidence shows that RAAC in these properties had already exceeded its designed lifetime at the time of sale, this could be classified as a latent defect—a hidden flaw that was not disclosed to the buyers. If proven, this could give homeowners grounds to claim that the council failed to meet its obligations to disclose or rectify such defects.
Negligence: There is a potential claim of negligence if it can be shown that the council had a duty of care towards the homeowners, which was breached by their failure to adequately address or disclose the RAAC issues. Establishing a sufficient nexus to duty of care would be critical in pursuing this line of argument.
Judicial Review: The possibility of seeking a judicial review of Aberdeen City Council's decision is also being explored. Grounds for this include failure to disclose key plans, such as the intent to offer only current market value for the properties before conducting surveys, limited engagement with affected homeowners, and ignoring communications from those impacted. A judicial review could challenge the legality of the council’s process and decision-making.
Conversation
In a private homeowners whats app agroup, Rebecca Doherty a young homwoner,wrote (sic):
"So I was told by [Wilson Lees] to contact Govan Law , shelter and citezen advice this was all over phone at start but none were able to help I contacted another solicitor from Alva Eva Comrie who wasn’t able to help. I then in a meeting with counsellor Mctaggert brought up how I was struggling to find any representation and she asked me why I would need that and basically told me I wouldn’t need anyone x"
For Aberdeen homeowners, the urgency is heightened by the looming three-month deadline to apply for a judicial review following the council's decision. Efforts are underway to identify a suitable solicitor who can advocate for these and other pressing concerns. This legal approach aims not only to secure fair compensation for homeowners but also to hold Aberdeen City Council accountable for its decisions and to ensure that similar situations are handled with greater transparency and responsibility in the future.
RAAC Campaigners everywhere are committed to addressing these issues through all available legal channels, ensuring that the rights of affected homeowners are protected and that justice is pursued for all parties impacted by these council decisions.
Mr Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman of the UK RAAC Campaign Group, said:
"I am deeply disgusted by the way homeowners have been treated by Scottish councils and the Scottish Government. It's appalling that decisions have been made that put homeowners on the brink of financial crisis, all due to clear errors in how local authorities and the government responded to the RAAC crisis. Despite the demolition of an entire estate in Basildon, England, as early as the 1980s due to RAAC concerns, and the similar plight of homeowners in West Lothian in 2004, councils and the government failed to act decisively to eliminate this threat. Instead, they allowed more homes to be sold or resold to unsuspecting buyers, exacerbating the crisis.
It’s important to remember that these homes were government-funded and sold under the Right to Buy scheme by councils that opted to cut corners by building on the cheap. It seems England and Wales learned from their initial RAAC housing issues, but Scottish councils, perhaps encouraged by the fact that RAAC was locally manufactured in Newmains, chose to continue the proliferation of these dangerous homes. The current situation in Tillicoultry, where homeowners have not been able to find a solicitor, is shocking. I am particularly bemused by the actions of Cllr McTaggart, who advised Ms. Doherty that she does not need a solicitor—this seems highly irresponsible. Our homeowners deserve better protection and support than this."
In the meanwhile UK RAAC Campaign Group continues to lobby for a political solution, hoping for a national budget to manifest via the Scottish Government. A response to an online petition on the Scottish Parliament Petitions website provided upsetting results. You can read more (here). The group is urging more people to sign their petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment