Jimmy, you raise an interesting point about why should one owner bear more cost than the others. So let’s say that the OC decides or is forced to pay for minklet’s tenant to move into alternative accommodation for a while. What’s to stop some of the owner-occupiers then saying “but we’re disrupted too, and we’d like the OC to pay for us to move into alternative accommodation also?”
Another way to look at it is this: why does minklet get his disruption costs paid for by the OC, but the other owners don’t? All owners will ultimately benefit from this disruption, including minklet. Everyone contributes financially for the work. Some owners will “pay” extra for that disruption by living through it. In minklet’s case, he/she doesn’t live through it but instead incurs the extra costs by losing out on rent.
I don’t know what the law says here, but it seems to me that everyone is being disrupted by this work and everyone could claim compension for disruption – it’s just that in minklet’s case the disruption can more easily be calculated in financial terms. Does that really mean that he/she is more disadvantaged than the other owners?