Compensation Claims – Closing the Gap
Across as wide range of infrastructure projects we are seeing an increasing number of compensation claims reaching the point of dispute and, with projects utilising compulsory acquisition powers set to rise, we are expecting to see this trend continue.
When compensation claims become protracted the commercial and emotional pressures on both parties rises, creating further entrenchment and an intensifying cycle of frustrations, lost time and escalating costs. The circle continues until time becomes critical and then there is rush to prepare for some form of litigated outcome. Ahead of any formal litigation parties are expected to have utilised some form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process.
There are several forms of ADR that can be used to resolve compulsory purchase disputes, each one extremely powerful when approached by the parties in the correct way when considering the matters in dispute.
Wilson Fearnall can provide RICS approved ADR through Expert Determination and Evaluative Mediation services, but we also encourage independent expert case reviews much earlier in negotiations as we firmly believe that prevention is much better than cure. This review service can be provided to one party or to both, is completely flexible, is confidential, without prejudice and is extremely cost effective. The input and output of a case review can be agreed on appointment of the expert, but the earlier independent input is provided, the greater the opportunity for resolution and subsequent time and cost savings.
The right ADR mechanism at the right time can be extremely effective and parties should be discouraged from using the process as a ‘box ticking exercise’ merely to gain leverage.
In preparation for engaging an expert to support in any capacity its worth thinking through the following:
- Consider all the issues and agree elements in dispute – have negotiations really been exhausted?
- Has all the evidence been put forward?
- Is the dispute just a valuation matter?
- Step back – is any position reasonable assuming the underlying principle of ‘equivalence’?
We strongly recommend early independent input and that ADR options are fully considered– multiple approaches can be used throughout negotiations. The small price of early expert input has the potential to de-escalate tensions and deliver significant time and cost savings through earlier claim settlement.
Related posts
As at the start of February 2016, many farmers will not have received their 2015 BPS payments. The RPA is under increasing pressure to make these payments and we
Across the Northwest/West Mids/North Wales region we have seen a general slowing in the value of residential development land over the last 12 months as more sites come to
After more than a decade of steady growth, the latter part of 2015 saw a slight reduction in the price of UK farmland in some of the most valuable
We are used to constant political upheaval in the renewable energy sector, but the last six months have been particularly difficult. Many are still looking at once viable projects
A number of interesting planning appeals concerning rural cases have been delivered in the last few weeks. Firstly, an appeal was dismissed for a new agricultural dwelling on a
Late in December the Department for Energy and Climate Change published their conclusions to the Feed-in Tariff scheme review. The full text can be found here. Whilst not all
