Är ersättningen korrekt?

Sammanfattning: The most common indirect profit allocation method is the principle of average value which is used to calculate the compensation in plot forming. In some cases the principle of average value gives an unreasonable compensation and should in such cases be adjusted, according to the Property Formation Act ch. 5 art. 11. The literature states that the compensation should be adjusted when land is supplied to or ceded from a property that is already built. Is this statement always correct? The purpose of this study is to analyse the rule of adjustment in the Property Formation Act ch. 5 art. 11. This is done by comparing how and when adjustment is made in the theory and in practice. The aim is also to investigate the circumstances about adjustment and how these affect the compensation. My theory is that there is a difference between adjustment made in theory and adjustment made in practice. In the case of theory, a literature study was made of relevant law sources. This was supplemented by official publications, literature and expert reports. To answer the question how and when adjustment is made in practice, two different studies were made. The first one was a qualitative analyse of eight court cases from the two first instances. Then 69 cadastral procedures were analysed. Both the court cases and the cadastral procedures were plot forming cases and therefore the compensation should be calculated with the principle of average value. The result of this study shows that there are several differences between theory and practice. The statement that compensation should be adjusted if land is supplied or ceded from a built property is only partly true since there are more parameters affecting the adjustment. It was discovered in both court cases and cadastral procedures that adjustment in some cases were made in a controversial way. In these cases, the courts and the valuators have not followed the purpose of the adjustment rule and established practice. The studies also show that there are several deficiencies on how the valuations are made, and the adjustment are sometimes even ignored. Only about 23 percent of the adjusted cadastral procedures were made correctly according to the legislation and established practice. Possible explanations are efficiency or lack of knowledge. The consequence of the controversial adjustments and the deficiencies in the valuations is that the affected property owners get the wrong compensation.