2380. CHAIRMAN: Is it in the register? There is a register of undertakings.

  2381. MR SAUNDERSON: I do not—

  2382. CHAIRMAN: You do not know? There is a register. These are of formal undertakings.

  2383. MR SAUNDERSON: It was a formal undertaking given to the Committee and on that basis the process was carried on. The second undertaking, you will see on page 40 of my spiral bound folder, 17317.[7] The other point to make on the record, this is Ms Lieven, a very senior barrister, I would have to say, "if a blight notice is served we will pay reasonable surveyor and legal costs of that process". Jones Lang LaSalle at the recommendation of Crossrail have been working for me for now some 15 or 16 months and have applied for fees and been refused payment of their fees. They have agreed professional rates of fees. Ms Lieven referred to a dispute over rates. I am not aware of any dispute over rates, the rates were filed and there was no comment or dispute. They have asked now to be paid, as indeed anybody on an hourly rate basis after 15 months would expect to be paid, and they have been refused. In my humble submission, an undertaking was given that they be paid reasonable fees. It is unreasonable, in my humble opinion, to ask them to work for nothing for 15 months or further.

  2384. CHAIRMAN: Have you made reference to the Lands Tribunal?

  2385. MR SAUNDERSON: No, I have not. I will come to that, because the Lands Tribunal hearings are in more than a year's time and Jones Lang LaSalle have to be funded, other professionals have to be funded, who is going to fund those? They have refused to pay the fees. Why should I incur more fees in respect of a body that cannot keep their undertakings? It is absolutely impossible to expect us to keep on funding this situation, which has been going on, as you have heard, for 17 years.

  2386. Just taking us on further through the Petition, page 5 in the middle, the blight notice was served, as has been mentioned, and accepted. Almost 12 months later we are now into the thirteenth month after acceptance of the blight notice, no offer has been made. Ms Lieven says an offer was made to us, no offer has been made. An agent acting on behalf of Crossrail sent us an email which I will refer you to, if I may, which is on page 11. This is Mr Nick Eden on page 11 to Richard Asher, who is of my firm Jones Lang LaSalle or acting for me, I should say.[8] It is headed up: "Blight notice. Without prejudice and subject to contract". "Further to our discussions before Christmas, I have received instructions on without prejudice and subject to contract basis to offer to settle on the following terms.

  2387. "1) The land to be acquired is the freehold interest", and so on.

  2388. "2) Compensation settlement will be £500,000, inclusive of relevant fees and costs of surveyors and lawyers.

  2389. "3) There will be an additional payment of SDLT", and various odd amounts.

  2390. "4) Completion must occur on or prior to Monday, 31st March".

  2391. "5) All of the above is subject to Crossrail board approval".

  2392. This is without prejudice, subject to contract, subject to Crossrail board approval, subject to a surveyor's fee deduction, of which we have an unknown quantum. It is not an offer in my opinion or in any reasonable opinion. He then concludes by saying: "The total as above amounts to £575,085, which will not be increased.

  2393. "I look forward to your confirmation that the above is acceptable. It is put forward to resolve the matter forthwith. It is not put forward as representing my view". Jones Lang reply on page 10 on the opposite side of the page, 19 February.[9] "Dear Nick", to Kinney Green, this is from Jones Lang LaSalle, I believe one of the largest firms of surveyors in the world, "I refer to your email dated the 16th January in response to my request that you make an offer to our client in respect of the above notice. Unfortunately, I regret to say that I consider that your offer is significantly below the current market value of the site. As a result, our client has rejected your offer out of hand.

  2394. "You will appreciate that our client is very disappointed with the offer which appears to be a final offer. Our client is also disappointed that the offer is still subject to your client's Board approval.

  2395. "We are of the view that were the Lands Tribunal to consider the valuation of the site under the terms of the blight notice, in the current market, they would set a level which would be in excess of £1.2 million for the site plus additional fees, costs and loss payments. On this basis our client is considering his position, particularly with regards to a reference to the Lands Tribunal.

  2396. "You are, I know, aware that our client has petitioned the House of Lords on the basis that your clients are not acting reasonably and are simply making no real attempt to reach a settlement in relation to the Blight notice which, in effect, your clients were directed to accept by the Crossrail Select Committee in the House of Commons.

  2397. "If your clients do feel able to break the apparent impasse, I would be pleased to hear from you". It just sets a picture for you of what we have been dealing with for the last 17 years.

  2398. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: How do you arrive at the figure of 1.2 million? I presume there is some validation.

  2399. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes, there have been three appraisals provided by Jones Lang LaSalle. You will see one of them in the papers I have given to you in November which provided a higher value and there are details of the surveyors' calculations as to how they arrive at the value for the site. Would you like to turn to that?

8   Committee Ref: A17, Correspondence from Kinney Green to Jones Lang LaSalle, 10 Hayne Street, London EC1-Blight Notice. Without prejudice and subject to contract, 16 January 2008 (LONLB-38_05-010) Back

9   Committee Ref: A17, Correspondence from Jones Lang LaSalle to Kinney Green, 10 Hayne Street, London EC1, 19 February 2008 (LONLB-38_05-009) Back