URGENT ADVICE: Selling due to Compulsory Acquisition?

Ah yes I see.

(2) Compensation shall be assessed according to the value of the estate or interest of the claimant in the land taken on the date when it was taken.

(2A) However, in assessing the compensation, a contract, licence, agreement or other arrangement (a "relevant instrument") was entered into for the sole or dominant purpose of enabling the claimant or another person to obtain compensation for an interest in the land created under the instrument.

So its assessed at the date it's taken.

But you can't do stuff to the land for the sole or dominant purpose of getting more compensation.

Option 2 is starting to look pretty good to me imo, since the government won't even accurately say when they're going to acquire the land.

 

Could be 10 years from now?

 

Exactly. I'd just be getting on with my original plan unless the government was contractually promising something solid.

OP should get their own specific legal advice, but the fact that they already had a plan to build and rent out seems to put them into safer territory in terms of whether OP would get compensated for the building or not.

 

It will depend upon the instrument used to acquire and the act nominated in the notification.

 

??

Did you mean what the relevant instrument is? We know those things. Building a house to rent. And then acquisition of that land.

 

It would depend upon which legislation the land was being acquired under obviously the Land Acquisition Act would be preferable

 

Option 3 & 4.
Take the payout and find a new BA !

What BA thinks buying next to a railway line (freeway, powerlines, nuclear waste facility) is a good idea anyway .........

The land/deal isn't cheaper than the area average because the BA found you a good deal, it's because of the compromise and it's now that has caused this headache !

 

#3- get out and invest somewhere solid. You may get little profit on land. If you put more money you take more risk hence losing your sleep until the deal become favour to you. If mkt drop in 2-3 years time, you need to accept the mkt rate. Certainly mkt will drop next to rail line. If your neighbour sell cheap that is the proxy price for you. Anyone who knows the situation wouldn’t buy there, no mkt value will drop substantially. Option-2 is too risky.

 

Thanks everyone for your responses.

I can confirm that during the meeting, in querying about Option 2, they did indeed clarify that the property will be compensated for based on market value as of the state it is in (brand new house built on it, or 1-10 year old house on it when they acquire it).
However, what I wasn't sure about was the term "Market Value", whether it meant based on the value of a similar properties in a convenient location near a train station or neighbouring lots of my actual property that could be heavily depreciated being so close to the railway line.

They did say that I was rather fortunate that due to the location of my lot, they require over 77% of the property, in which they would acquire all 100% of it. However, if it had been the reversed where they only require 23% of my property, that could create more complications.

Based on how much stress it has been causing me even before the build has even started, I think I'm pretty confident I will go with Option 3.
If this property was simply one of many from my portfolio, I'd probably take the risk of Option 2.

In this case, this is my first property and I have not experienced receiving any rental income before!

 

Honestly you need to get some advice from a lawyer with experience in the area.

I wouldn't be surprised if option 3 just ended up stuffing you around and if it not successful, wasting months of your time.

 

Once you accept, they have to move forward with the CA.

A few years back, we received a hardship claim backed by all of the necessary documents to prove hardship (old age bond, house needed to be sold, ill health etc).

The property was affected by 2 different instruments old caveat by a Roads Authority predating the purchase & a council road widening.

As there is a short timeframe to respond & acquire the property, we had to get the road widening plan overturned (if there were no plans or funds for the widening, then it was not required). Got that overturned & flicked it back to the Roads Authority to acquire or sell.

Yes, it was stuffing around but it removed a non-current requirement for a road widening.

 

is it just me or does this remind you of The Castle and sounds like a clear case for Dennis Denuto?

Good luck with your situation too OP.

 

This article might interest you:
A major tunnel will run under Christine's house but she won't get compensation

In QLD, the amount of compensation is based on market value at the time of resumption, with whatever improvements are already there. In other states, the compensation is based on the "best use" of the land. Probably no impact on a dwelling house, but it would be much worse if the land was zoned for apartments.

 

I think in QLD also it's the best use the land...