Worked examples
Three scenarios drawn from the categories we review most often — what the agreement said, what the review found, and why nobody had picked it up.
These are illustrative scenarios. Each one is a constructed example built from the kinds of issue this work turns on. None is a record of a specific client matter, and none should be read as an indication of what any particular claim will achieve. Outcomes depend entirely on the agreement, the evidence, limitation and the facts of the scheme.
180-unit residential scheme, North West. A £480,000 education contribution was paid on first occupation in 2016. The agreement required the authority to apply it towards expansion of a named primary school within five years of receipt, and provided that any unspent balance became repayable on demand after that date.
The expansion did not proceed. At the fifth anniversary £310,000 remained unspent, and the repayment provision had been triggered. No demand had been made, because nobody on the developer side was tracking the date.
Illustrative scenario, not a record of a specific client matter.
Mixed-use scheme, Midlands. A £220,000 contribution was expressed to be for the provision and initial maintenance of a named area of public open space serving the development.
A review of the authority’s own capital expenditure records showed the sum had been absorbed into general highway maintenance elsewhere in the borough. Spending outside the permitted purpose the agreement defines is a breach of the covenant, and the claim does not depend on any spend period having expired.
Illustrative scenario, not a record of a specific client matter.
Two-phase residential scheme, Yorkshire. A Section 38 bond was put in place at £640,000 against estate roads and drainage, with a reduction mechanism tied to certification of the works.
The roads were complete and in public use. The maintenance period had run. The bond had never been reduced, because the final certificate was outstanding on an inspection the authority had not scheduled. Four years of premium had been paid on security covering works that no longer carried the risk it was sized for.
Illustrative scenario, not a record of a specific client matter.
The common thread
None of these turns on a clever argument. In every case the entitlement existed, the date had passed or the breach had occurred, and the position simply went unnoticed because the scheme was finished and the team had moved on. That is what the audit is looking for.
Your portfolio may contain none of these. Finding out costs nothing.
Book free audit →Book your free audit
A short, confidential conversation is enough to tell whether a full review is worth your time. No charge for the first-stage audit, and no obligation to instruct us afterwards.