Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10620
- 10639)
10620. I said that our position in the event
that we are able to follow the revised scheme, which would do
away with that aspect of the works, was that we would not need
to obstruct or deprive access to any of the loading bays on the
market side the Lindsey Street, do you remember that?
(Mr Abrahams) Yes.
10621. Staying with that point, if then we proceed
with those revised proposals, your business and those of other
traders within the market would not be affected as regard loss
of loading bays, would it?
(Mr Abrahams) The latest plans that I saw leave Lindsey Street
narrowed and I feel that would impinge on the working of Smithfield.
10622. What we have said is, and Mr Berryman
can confirm this I hope in a few moments' time, that certainly
on the market side, that is on the western side the Lindsey Street,
we would expect to be able to keep those loading bays open at
all times during the construction of the revised scheme. If that
is right, that would satisfy your concerns, would it?
(Mr Abrahams) No, it would not because, as I say, on the
last plans that I saw, Lindsey Street was narrowed, so that would
restrict vehicular access.
10623. Insofar as the original scheme was concerned,
I do not need to refer again to what is said on the page there,
Mr Dingemans has referred to that, but presumably your position
is that as market tenants you have a right to use those loading
bays as part and parcel of your right to occupy your premises?
(Mr Abrahams) That is correct.
10624. I can tell you that my position as a
lawyer is this. If that is right, and I believe it to be right
as an analysis of your position, if the effect of our works is
to deprive you of the use of that right, as a result of which
you suffer loss, you would be able to recover compensation in
respect of that loss because we would be depriving you of a legal
right that you would otherwise enjoy in the absence of the works,
do you see the point?
(Mr Abrahams) Yes.
10625. If that is right, given that your concern
to their Lordships today is with an adequate right to compensation
being available to yourself and other tenants, that would satisfy
that concern so far as the loading bays are concerned, would it
not?
(Mr Abrahams) I am afraid you have lost me. I do not know
what point you are trying to make.
10626. What I am saying in simple terms is if
you are able to claim compensation under the current state of
the law for losses that result from you being deprived of the
use of your loading bays, that would overcome the concern in relation
to that point that you presented to the Committee this morning,
would it not?
(Mr Abrahams) I believe that my advocate has explained that
the current method of compensation is not right for our case.
That is my belief.
10627. I have made a particular point to you,
I will not put it again because I can deal with it later, but
that point is what I wanted to make.
10628. BARONESS FOOKES: Before you continue,
Mr Mould, the speed with which compensation is received I imagine
is key to anyone running a business. How swiftly would compensation
come?
10629. MR MOULD: I think the answer to
that is, it depends.
10630. BARONESS FOOKES: I dare say it
does.
10631. MR MOULD: If a claimant came forward
and said, "Look, during the course of the last six months
you've been carrying out works, as a result of which I have been
unable to gain access to my loading bay for three days a week.
Here is a schedule of the events in question. These are the trading
losses that I have suffered as a result of that", then I
dare say that the Promoter, or in that case the nominated undertaker
and their representatives who are fielding claims of that kind,
would react to that relatively quickly. I cannot say any more
than that.
10632. BARONESS FOOKES: I would not be
happy if that was the assurance I was given.
10633. MR MOULD: I cannot give your Ladyship
any better assurance because these are matters that will be the
subject of more detailed arrangements as the scheme roles out.
What we have said to you, for example, is there is a small claims
scheme. Do you recall that we mentioned that in our evidence to
you? That is something which is the subject of an information
paper, I think. If the sort of claim that your Ladyship has in
mind was one that was relatively small in nature, I cannot remember
whether we have given any financial limit for claims of that kind,
but the small claims scheme is intended and designed precisely
to enable relatively limited financial claims for losses which
occur to residential and commercial operations and occupiers during
the construction of Crossrail to be dealt with on a relatively
speedy basis without the need, as Mr Dingemans would put it, to
involve the lawyers unnecessarily.
10634. Given that we do not expect, for the
reasons that have been given—Mr Berryman can explain this
further if necessary—that there will be any significant
and prolonged obstruction of loading bays around the market, including,
as that undertaking indicates, in Lindsey Street, I would have
thought that it is fair to assume that the sort of claims that
your Ladyship has in mind are likely to fall within the embrace
of that small claims scheme, which, as I say, is already something
which is provided for in our proposals and is referred to in one
of the information papers.
10635. BARONESS FOOKES: In practice,
Mr Mould, when you are running a business, you have probably got
enough problems without having to work out very carefully what
the losses might be, how you present them. It is all an added
difficulty for the traders.
10636. MR MOULD: Of course, as I am reminded,
and a very fair point, the concern you express about practically
making a claim and getting the money in your pocket applies equally
under the arrangements which are proposed by the market traders
as it does under the arrangements that we propose. Whether or
not your claim is recoverable, you have still got to bring forward
the evidence to show that you have suffered a loss and persuade
the person who is paying you the compensation to accept it. Put
shortly, a common theme of all our proposals in whatever form
they may take is that you have got to prove causation.
10637. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: I
am more interested in prevention than the cure.
10638. MR MOULD: So are we.
10639. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: You
have given an undertaking, you have assessed the situation and
you believe that you will not impede the use of the loading bays,
that is one part. You believe the undertaker can carry out the
operations of construction without impeding the use of the loading
bays. The other point that Mr Abrahams made that did concern me
a bit was the question of vehicular access because he felt the
road was likely to be narrowed as a result of the operation. I
wonder if you can cover that. The point I really want to make
is we all know that with complex building operations the theory
is that you are not going to impede the loading bays. The practice
might be, I do not know, that somebody delivering something will
park in front of the loading bays and impede the access. It seems
to me that what I want to hear is that during the course of these
building operations you are going to ensure that you deliver on
the undertaking and that any obstructions will be removed promptly
and speedily because that really is the best defence that Mr Abrahams
can have in relation to his business rather than the cumbersome
pursuit of the compensation after the event.
| 
