advertisement


HS2 - levelling up... LOL

Tony L said:
Apparently some who had their homes compulsory purchased are now being offered the “opportunity“ to buy them back at a higher price:

inews.co.uk

HS2 evictees to be told they can buy back their old homes, but at a higher price

Those who sold their homes along the cancelled northern leg of HS2 may have to pay significantly more to buy them back
inews.co.uk inews.co.uk
Click to expand...

All assets need to be sold at market value and no less. To think folks haven’t moved on with their lives since (very generous at the time) compulsory purchases is very odd.
 
However, the former owners will be charged at today’s market value
Click to expand...

Surely that can't be legal, it should just be a case of returning the compulsory purchase payment or cancelling the CPO and the money being returned.

I think the paper must have got the story wrong as I would hope that not even HS2 would be stupid enough to try that kind of blatant profiteering.
 
Ponty said:
All assets need to be sold at market value and no less. To think folks haven’t moved on with their lives since (very generous at the time) compulsory purchases is very odd.
Click to expand...

But these were "compulsory" it's not as if people willingly sold up and moved on. My understanding is that the CPOs were not "very generous" either, just market rate plus costs.
 
vacuum_tubes said:
But these were "compulsory" it's not as if people willingly sold up and moved on. My understanding is that the CPOs were not "very generous" either, just market rate plus costs.
Click to expand...

Think I’ve said I knew a chap whose place was CPO’d. Couldn’t believe his luck. Sometimes you just have to move on in life, it is what it is.
 
vacuum_tubes said:
But these were "compulsory" it's not as if people willingly sold up and moved on. My understanding is that the CPOs were not "very generous" either, just market rate plus costs.
Click to expand...
Which would have been agricultural rates and now they want to shift them on as building land
 
One thing I haven't seen discussed, and which was brought home to me when I drove past some of the tunnelling yesterday: you can't just stop HS2. There would be an enormous amount of work to close down and make safe all the places where work that has been done thus far, and that would be extremely expensive. Given the way the decision appears to have been taken I wonder what estimates were made (if any) and how this has been factored in.
 
the_bat said:
One thing I haven't seen discussed, and which was brought home to me when I drove past some of the tunnelling yesterday: you can't just stop HS2. There would be an enormous amount of work to close down and make safe all the places where work that has been done thus far, and that would be extremely expensive. Given the way the decision appears to have been taken I wonder what estimates were made (if any) and how this has been factored in.
Click to expand...

There will be huge contractual pay-outs as the huge construction companies involved are not daft and will have endless breach of contract clauses etc. We’ll likely end up paying far more for the Tories to shit-can the project than to build it. I’m certain it was cancelled to enable yet more grift and corruption. I’m certain some Tories and their donors and owners will get very rich from this decision. I smell scam.
 
Yep, there will be enormous penalties to be paid for break, but then any work to make partial construction safe will be additional, outside the scope of works, and subject to extra charge. As I understand it, Euston was already in the "make safe and mothball" phase

It's extremely rare for infrastructure contracts of any scale to allow for stop and full reversal of the work. No contractor would ever bid on a contract with such a clause, as they rely on pre-contracting expensive resources, and those contracts can have pretty high break payments..

This is a colossal piece of self sabotage too. By breaking a £100 bn contract, the Tories have downgraded the UK gov's reputation in the eyes of every large infrastructure company, and every time tenders come in for something big, those tenders will have the possibility of the rug being pulled priced in.. at a high premium.
 
Ponty said:
Because you, I and every other taxpayer bought, or rather borrowed the money to buy those assets. Would you sell your house below market value (assuming no forced sale)?
Click to expand...
The problem is you can justify almost anything by arguing for taxpayer value.

I think the question shouldn't be what's best for the taxpayer but whether the government is acting morally and in the best interests of all it's citizens.
 
paulfromcamden said:
The problem is you can justify almost anything by arguing for taxpayer value.

I think the question shouldn't be what's best for the taxpayer but whether the government is acting morally and in the best interests of all its citizens.
Click to expand...

Has any govt done that, ever, anywhere?!
 
The country that invented railways and spread them over half the world. This is post-Brexit Britain: dithering, short-term and unconfident. Pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top