Can I sue my council

[bltamil1]

hunton69 said:

When you buy a property would you go around and measure all the buildings? We did not
We only noticed the height after we purchased.
The council in there investigation should of taken that into account during there investigation.
We have it in writing from them : it appears the planning officer did not consider the criteria of curtilage or whether the buildings were incidental to the dwelling house but only considered heights and sitings etc. That proves he did not.

We have a local resident who is now miffed why the council did not take action in 2007 when they complained. They are going to write to the council for a copy of there complaint and the councils reply.

When I bought my current house, I didn't go around measuring it no. However, my house didn't have an outstanding enforcement notice on it.

Perhaps the individual officer took it as read that the buildings were within the curtilage of the dwelling? Maybe he should have looked into that further, but he didn't, and wasn't under any obligation to do so I'm afraid. The local resident who made the complaint may have reason to be aggrieved depending upon the grounds for their initial complaint, but this does not translate into any duty to you I'm afraid.

I sincerely wish you well should you choose to pursue an action, but it doesn't appear to me that the Council has a case to answer at all. You don't seem to have any of the basic requirements for a claim to even arise.

[hunton69]

bltamil1 said:

Where did you get that from? The Officer doesn't work from a script, and doesn't necessarily come out looking for breaches. They may choose only to investigate the complaint in front of them.

They investigated all of them

I met with the previous owner last year he said the visits were so regular he used to make him coffee.

The building control officer (I know they don't get involved) told me all the dates he visited the property. He had about 20 visits.

Getting that info out of the planning department might prove tricker.

[hunton69]

bltamil1 said:

Perhaps the individual officer took it as read that the buildings were within the curtilage of the dwelling? Maybe he should have looked into that further, but he didn't, and wasn't under any obligation to do so I'm afraid. .

Thanks for that info.

Can I ask why he is not obliged to.

[bltamil1]

hunton69 said:

bltamil1 said:

Perhaps the individual officer took it as read that the buildings were within the curtilage of the dwelling? Maybe he should have looked into that further, but he didn't, and wasn't under any obligation to do so I'm afraid. .

Thanks for that info.

Can I ask why he is not obliged to.

It's probably best likened to trying to prove a negative. For example, I could call up my local Council and complain about the house across the road with some vague complaint about it not having planning permission. The Council could send someone out to take a look, but they won't then go poring over every detail trying to find some breach of permission. They will require somewhere to start, if that makes sense.

In this case, the owner would probably have told them that the outbuildings all comply with Class E permitted development and listed a few reasons why. It seems a bit remiss of the Officer not to check the curtilage and height/size requirements, but we can only guess at their reasons (absent the paperwork). However, even if those reasons are exceptionally flimsy, and amount to no more than laziness, this doesn't translate into a civil claim from a third party some years later.

The above is, of course, purely conjecture and guesswork, but hopefully illustrates the point. You could possibly argue that the Council SHOULD have investigated more fully, but this does not mean they had any legal obligation to do so, much less any duty to you in particular.

The fact is that you bought the property in the full knowledge that at least some of it was illegal development, and I think you will struggle to get past that.

As I said before, I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, and it may be that your solicitor takes a more learned view, but in my experience of development and the planning system I cant see this going well for you.

[Steve H]

I've got to ask a question here. If a council states that it is taking no further action with regard to the construction of a building are they not committed to that decision?


The OP has not always been clear about some details and I had assumed that the 2007 investigation had not actually been closed and that instead it had merely never been concluded; it now transpires that the case was in fact closed with the the finding "no further action". This would mean that any investigations made when the OP was purchasing the property would show that there had been a complaint that was not upheld and so the buildings were either built within PD rights or that the council had made a decision not to take any action against the property.


If we can take a leap of faith that the 2007 decision referred to all the buildings, I'm not sure how the council can then reverse that decision in 2009 no matter how poorly done or incorrectly concluded the original investigation was.

[bltamil1]

Steve H said:

I've got to ask a question here. If a council states that it is taking no further action with regard to the construction of a building are they not committed to that decision?

They haven't stated that. As I understand it, the 'No Further Action' means that that particular complaint is concluded with no further action necessary. It DOES NOT follow that the buildings are therefore legal.

Steve H said:

The OP has not always been clear about some details and I had assumed that the 2007 investigation had not actually been closed and that instead it had merely never been concluded; it now transpires that the case was in fact closed with the the finding "no further action". This would mean that any investigations made when the OP was purchasing the property would show that there had been a complaint that was not upheld and so the buildings were either built within PD rights or that the council had made a decision not to take any action against the property.


If we can take a leap of faith that the 2007 decision referred to all the buildings, I'm not sure how the council can then reverse that decision in 2009 no matter how poorly done or incorrectly concluded the original investigation was.

Even if the Council has reversed it's decision in 2009, the OP purchased the property in 2010....

If you want to be certain that buildings are legal, you should either apply for planning permission or apply for a Certificate of Lawful Development for a structure that you consider already has planning permission by virtue of PD rights. These two methods would bind the Council to the decision (subject to any Judicial Review of course) and would remove the risk of any subsequent complaint or action.

[hunton69]

bltamil1 said:

Even if the Council has reversed it's decision in 2009, the OP purchased the property in 2010....

If you want to be certain that buildings are legal, you should either apply for planning permission or apply for a Certificate of Lawful Development for a structure that you consider already has planning permission by virtue of PD rights. These two methods would bind the Council to the decision (subject to any Judicial Review of course) and would remove the risk of any subsequent complaint or action.

I have never said in my posts that the buildings were or are legal. Far from it I know that some where never PD others would be if in curtilage. My basis is the failure or the planning department.

Below is the definition of maladmisistration and that is my basis for suing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maladministration

If some one makes a mistake then that would not be deemed as maladministration as mistakes happen.

A combination of mistakes and then it is a different matter.

If you read all my posts the planning department got every thing wrong in 2007.

[Steve H]

bltamil1 said:

Steve H said:

I've got to ask a question here. If a council states that it is taking no further action with regard to the construction of a building are they not committed to that decision?

They haven't stated that. As I understand it, the 'No Further Action' means that that particular complaint is concluded with no further action necessary. It DOES NOT follow that the buildings are therefore legal.

I'm not asking if they are actually legal under PD rights, I'm asking if the council can reasonably carry out an investigation and publish that they are not taking any further action and yet two years later make a contrary decision when faced with the same facts?

bltamil1 said:

Even if the Council has reversed it's decision in 2009, the OP purchased the property in 2010....

Fair point, that may be an issue for the OP. TBH I was concentrating on the councils actions here and would still be interested in knowing how/if they can get away with that.

How about if we take a slightly different example?

What if the 2007 investigations were carried out following a complaint during the construction process. The council investigates and the owner provides them with drawings etc of the buildings that he is half way through putting up. He suspends the build while they investigate and continues when they close the case and with the conclusion of "no further action". Two years later the council look again and decide enforcement is appropriate.

Wouldn't the council be bound by their earlier decision?

[hunton69]

bltamil1 said:

It's probably best likened to trying to prove a negative. For example, I could call up my local Council and complain about the house across the road with some vague complaint about it not having planning permission. The Council could send someone out to take a look, but they won't then go poring over every detail trying to find some breach of permission. They will require somewhere to start, if that makes sense.

In this case, the owner would probably have told them that the outbuildings all comply with Class E permitted development and listed a few reasons why. It seems a bit remiss of the Officer not to check the curtilage and height/size requirements, but we can only guess at their reasons (absent the paperwork). However, even if those reasons are exceptionally flimsy, and amount to no more than laziness, this doesn't translate into a civil claim from a third party some years later.

The above is, of course, purely conjecture and guesswork, but hopefully illustrates the point. You could possibly argue that the Council SHOULD have investigated more fully, but this does not mean they had any legal obligation to do so, much less any duty to you in particular.

The fact is that you bought the property in the full knowledge that at least some of it was illegal development, and I think you will struggle to get past that.

As I said before, I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, and it may be that your solicitor takes a more learned view, but in my experience of development and the planning system I cant see this going well for you.

If you read all my posts after I purchased the property in 2010 the day I got the keys they had a visit. 2 more within 3 months 6 officers in total and they wanted a fourth (I refused that one) so in my case they did pore over every detail.

[10 Pence Short]

hunton69 said:

Below is the definition of maladmisistration and that is my basis for suing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maladministration.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe there is a cause of action in England under 'maladministration'. Your Wiki link talks of the Ombudsman, which is not the same thing.

I suspect you took a punt on th local authority never acting as they're entitled and lost. That's the risk in gambling.

[Steve H]

Even if they formally said that they weren't going to act?

[hunton69]

Enforcement – The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the Local Planning Authority to
safeguard the environment and the public by investigating alleged breaches of planning control in a
thorough, timely and efficient manner, taking enforcement action where it is considered to be
expedient and in the public interests. The planning enforcement service at Three Rivers District
Council is predominantly undertaken by the Projects & Compliance Team within the Development
Management section of the Community and Environmental Services Directorate

Copied from the Three Rivers web site.

Now check out the original picture of the plot.

Three Rivers has a policy that only allows a 40% increase for extensions within the green belt.

The 7 out buildings were 708 sq meters. If you check out the garage block nearest the house that was another 120 sq meters built as PD in 2006 (by the way part of it was illegal however the council did not act with in 4 years and is now lawfull)

The house has a footprint of 100 Sq Meters.
In there response to my appeal they went into great detail about these sizes.

I think this might of been in the public interest.

Edited by hunton69 on Monday 17th February 20:02

[Steffan]

10 Pence Short said:

hunton69 said:

Below is the definition of maladmisistration and that is my basis for suing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maladministration.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe there is a cause of action in England under 'maladministration'. Your Wiki link talks of the Ombudsman, which is not the same thing.

I suspect you took a punt on th local authority never acting as they're entitled and lost. That's the risk in gambling.

I think you are quite correct in your view. A JR is probably the only hope (not cheap) but I think the OP will have to try the full appeals process within planning first in order to get a court to accept a JR. I have followed this topic from the start and I have come to the conclusion that so far as I can gather there does not appear to be any grounds for an action.

As I have explained to disappointed clients in the past upon occasion disagreeing with a decision is not in itself grounds for action. There has to be a substantive basis for an action to succeed. If there is such a basis here I cannot see it. I could be wrong and the OP could be on a winner but I cannot see how from the facts presented on here.

[10 Pence Short]

Steve H said:

Even if they formally said that they weren't going to act?

I don't believe they have said sufficiently formally that the developments were permitted (as in issued certificates). Unless there are more recent authorities, see East Sussex Ex Parte Reprotech on the issue of estoppel/ legitimate expectation. Words of advice from planning officers are insufficient.

[bltamil1]

hunton69 said:

bltamil1 said:

Even if the Council has reversed it's decision in 2009, the OP purchased the property in 2010....

If you want to be certain that buildings are legal, you should either apply for planning permission or apply for a Certificate of Lawful Development for a structure that you consider already has planning permission by virtue of PD rights. These two methods would bind the Council to the decision (subject to any Judicial Review of course) and would remove the risk of any subsequent complaint or action.

I have never said in my posts that the buildings were or are legal. Far from it I know that some where never PD others would be if in curtilage. My basis is the failure or the planning department.

Below is the definition of maladmisistration and that is my basis for suing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maladministration

If some one makes a mistake then that would not be deemed as maladministration as mistakes happen.

A combination of mistakes and then it is a different matter.

If you read all my posts the planning department got every thing wrong in 2007.

I did say "Even if".....

You don't know that the Council "got every thing wrong in 2007". You don't have the correspondence, you don't know what the specific complaint was, and you don't know how the Council came to their decision to take no further action.

As I (and numerous others) have already reminded you, you purchased the property with the knowledge that it was subject to an enforcement notice requiring demolition. How do you hope to reconcile this with the court when arguing that you have suffered a loss as a direct result of the Council failing to act against someone else three years beforehand?

Also, Wikipedia is not a good source....

[hunton69]

10 Pence Short said:

I don't believe they have said sufficiently formally that the developments were permitted (as in issued certificates). Unless there are more recent authorities, see East Sussex Ex Parte Reprotech on the issue of estoppel/ legitimate expectation. Words of advice from planning officers are insufficient.

Words from an officer is only his opinion and a disclaimer will be at the bottom of every letter.

However higher up the chain it goes then that is not always the case.
The planning department has a job to do they cannot always worm there way out.
The purpose of the disclaimer is obvious on site meeting they will give advice they cannot be bound by that advice untill the research the case.
Planning is not always black and white I think you will find in my case there was not much grey with some of the buildings.

I asumed that closing an enforcement case involved senior managers. I may be wrong

[Steffan]

hunton69 said:

10 Pence Short said:

I don't believe they have said sufficiently formally that the developments were permitted (as in issued certificates). Unless there are more recent authorities, see East Sussex Ex Parte Reprotech on the issue of estoppel/ legitimate expectation. Words of advice from planning officers are insufficient.

Words from an officer is only his opinion and a disclaimer will be at the bottom of every letter.

However higher up the chain it goes then that is not always the case.
The planning department has a job to do they cannot always worm there way out.
The purpose of the disclaimer is obvious on site meeting they will give advice they cannot be bound by that advice untill the research the case.
Planning is not always black and white I think you will find in my case there was not much grey with some of the buildings.

I asumed that closing an enforcement case involved senior managers. I may be wrong

It will be interesting to see what your Solicitor says when he has all the relevant documentation. Best of luck but costs would be my concern.

[bltamil1]

hunton69 said:

10 Pence Short said:

I don't believe they have said sufficiently formally that the developments were permitted (as in issued certificates). Unless there are more recent authorities, see East Sussex Ex Parte Reprotech on the issue of estoppel/ legitimate expectation. Words of advice from planning officers are insufficient.

Words from an officer is only his opinion and a disclaimer will be at the bottom of every letter.

However higher up the chain it goes then that is not always the case.
The planning department has a job to do they cannot always worm there way out.
The purpose of the disclaimer is obvious on site meeting they will give advice they cannot be bound by that advice untill the research the case.
Planning is not always black and white I think you will find in my case there was not much grey with some of the buildings.

I asumed that closing an enforcement case involved senior managers. I may be wrong

I give up.

Yes, you can sue your Council.

Good luck, and please do let us know how you get on.

[hunton69]

bltamil1 said:

I did say "Even if".....

You don't know that the Council "got every thing wrong in 2007". You don't have the correspondence, you don't know what the specific complaint was, and you don't know how the Council came to their decision to take no further action.

As I (and numerous others) have already reminded you, you purchased the property with the knowledge that it was subject to an enforcement notice requiring demolition. How do you hope to reconcile this with the court when arguing that you have suffered a loss as a direct result of the Council failing to act against someone else three years beforehand?

I'm sorry but you have the facts wrong. There was not an enforcement notice requiring me to demolish when I purchased the property.
There was an enforcement case pending
The result of there Enforcement Case in April 2011 (7 months after I purchased) resulted in an enforcement notice being issued requiring me to demolish all of the buildings.
The reason was that the buildings were not in curtilage. And they admit that during there 2 investigation in 2007 it appears that the officers did not consider the criteria of curtilage.

Not sure how many times I have said this I do know what the complaints were One of them was from my now brother and sister in law. Not only have we spoke in depth but I have the draft letter they wrote.

[10 Pence Short]

Were certificates of lawful development issued, or letters issued by the planning department that specifically said no enforcement action would ever be taken?