Can I sue my council
Discussion
Steve H said:
The real question is did they actually reach a conclusion in 2007?
If they officially concluded either that the buildings were legal or that they were not legal but that no further action was warranted then you may perhaps have a case against them now. In either situation there would have been a letter sent to the owners a copy of which should be on file but that sounds unlikely in this case as it would have answered the queries that came up from purchasers in 2009.
If they did not complete their investigation or reach an official conclusion then they are now continuing or reopening an ongoing case.
There were 2 enforcement case opened and then closed in 2007. I have to presume that by closing the cases then they were satisfied that the buildings were built under PD criteria.If they officially concluded either that the buildings were legal or that they were not legal but that no further action was warranted then you may perhaps have a case against them now. In either situation there would have been a letter sent to the owners a copy of which should be on file but that sounds unlikely in this case as it would have answered the queries that came up from purchasers in 2009.
If they did not complete their investigation or reach an official conclusion then they are now continuing or reopening an ongoing case.
We have a letter from a local resident who complained and the office at the time told her that the owner new planning loop holes.
We also have it on record from the enforcement officer who was dealing with the case in 2009/2010 (The previous enforcement officer retired) He writes it appears that the officer at the time did not consider curtilage or wether the buildings were incidental to the dwelling house.
In a nut shell why not as there isn't much else he had to consider.
The scale of the site was huge everyone and anyone who has visited the site since we owned it is shocked by the magnitude of the development.
It sounds to me that you knew that you were taking a risk when you bought the property, but went ahead anyway. Forgive me if I am reading too much into what you say. It is sometimes possible to obtain indemnities from a seller as to matters such as compliance with planning controls, or to insure against risks associated with planning.
If you do have a beef, it appears to me that it is not with the planning authority but potentially with the solicitors who handled the purchase for you. A claim would require proof that the solicitors failed to act as competent conveyancers would have done in making enquiries and advising you on risks.
If you do have a beef, it appears to me that it is not with the planning authority but potentially with the solicitors who handled the purchase for you. A claim would require proof that the solicitors failed to act as competent conveyancers would have done in making enquiries and advising you on risks.
Breadvan72 said:
It sounds to me that you knew that you were taking a risk when you bought the property, but went ahead anyway. Forgive me if I am reading too much into what you say. It is sometimes possible to obtain indemnities from a seller as to matters such as compliance with planning controls, or to insure against risks associated with planning.
If you do have a beef, it appears to me that it is not with the planning authority but potentially with the solicitors who handled the purchase for you. A claim would require proof that the solicitors failed to act as competent conveyancers would have done in making enquiries and advising you on risks.
Your correct I knew what I was buying and I knew that the buildings did not have a certificate of lawfulness There were 7 buildings we only wanted to keep 2 buildings.If you do have a beef, it appears to me that it is not with the planning authority but potentially with the solicitors who handled the purchase for you. A claim would require proof that the solicitors failed to act as competent conveyancers would have done in making enquiries and advising you on risks.
We also knew that the council had two enforcement cases opened and closed in 2007 we expected them to investigate the legality of those buildings properly the fact is they closed those cases without any action being taken.
We also had a conversation with senior planners from the council prior to buying in 2009 and they informed us that 2 of the buildings in there view ok. The swimming pool and dog kennel.
They then told us in 2011 they were all illegal.
My question is why did the council decision differ on so many occasions.
Any one can build under permitted development as long as the building fit the criteria.
We only know now that the buildings failed in most of the criteria to be PD in 2007 why did the planners not pick that up in 2007.
Edited by hunton69 on Wednesday 12th February 09:51
Your question appears to me to be academic. On the facts that you state, the answer to the question "Can I sue the Council?" is no.
If you went into the deal with your eyes open, you may not have a beef against the solicitors either.
A claim does not arise just because someone has done something wrong or omitted to do something right. You have to show that the person had a duty not to do wrong to you and that what they did or failed to do has caused loss to you.
If you went into the deal with your eyes open, you may not have a beef against the solicitors either.
A claim does not arise just because someone has done something wrong or omitted to do something right. You have to show that the person had a duty not to do wrong to you and that what they did or failed to do has caused loss to you.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 12th February 12:08
Somnophore said:
I would be suing whoever did your survey when you bought the place
Breadvan72 said:
Why sue a surveyor who probably just conducted a structural survey of the buildings? This is an issue of planning consent, not building condition, and it was for the solicitor, not the surveyor, to identify and advise on any risk of planning enforcement action.
We always get the first blame, the solicitor next.Breadvan72 said:
You question appears to me to be academic. On the facts that you state, the answer to the question "Can I sue the Council?" is no.
If you went into the deal with your eyes, you may not have a beef against the solicitors either.
A claim does not arise just because someone has done something wrong or omitted to do something right. You have to show that the person had a duty not to do wrong to you and that what they did or failed to do has caused loss to you.
He could seek a Judicial Review could he not?If you went into the deal with your eyes, you may not have a beef against the solicitors either.
A claim does not arise just because someone has done something wrong or omitted to do something right. You have to show that the person had a duty not to do wrong to you and that what they did or failed to do has caused loss to you.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 12th February 10:05
Breadvan72 said:
A judicial review of what? In any event, the time limit for a judicial review claim is a maximum of three months from the decision or action complained of, subject to extension in exceptional circumstances.
A judicial review of the decisions and process followed. Not my area hence the ?!You have to identify a distinct decision or decisions to challenge, and you have to act promptly, with a three month cut off in most cases. If there is an appeal route available, you must take that instead (and at least one decision here was appealed unsuccesfully). Judicial review remedies are discretionary in any event, and what would a late JR profit the OP?
In summary, there is no judicial review case here on the facts stated thus far.
In summary, there is no judicial review case here on the facts stated thus far.
Breadvan72 said:
You question appears to me to be academic. On the facts that you state, the answer to the question "Can I sue the Council?" is no.
If you went into the deal with your eyes, you may not have a beef against the solicitors either.
A claim does not arise just because someone has done something wrong or omitted to do something right. You have to show that the person had a duty not to do wrong to you and that what they did or failed to do has caused loss to you.
Thank you for your repliesIf you went into the deal with your eyes, you may not have a beef against the solicitors either.
A claim does not arise just because someone has done something wrong or omitted to do something right. You have to show that the person had a duty not to do wrong to you and that what they did or failed to do has caused loss to you.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 12th February 10:05
My thinking is that the planning department did do something wrong. They failed in there duty to carry out an investigation as to the legallity of these buildings. Not once but twice.
What was the point of neighbours complaining to the council about these buildings if the planning department was not going to investigate properly. Had the previous owner not been repossed there would not of been a third enforcement case opened and after 4 years these buildings would of become legal for the purpose they were built for.
I agree just because someone does not do there job correctly the council can not be held accountable however my understanding is that to close a case senior planners have to be involved.
During the third investigation we had 3 visits from 6 officers that is how serious they then took it.
They could of closed the third case while the bank owned the property and then there would not have been an issue as to what I was buying.
PS: Trying to sue on the basis of might have beens (would haves, should haves*, etc) can be difficult. Add to this the fact that your complaint is, in effect, a complaint that the Council should not have enforced the law, and the claim will look very unattractive to a Judge.
* It's "would/should have", not "would/should of".
* It's "would/should have", not "would/should of".
Breadvan72 said:
PS: Trying to sue on the basis of might have beens (would haves, should haves*, etc) can be difficult. Add to this the fact that your complaint is, in effect, a complaint that the Council should not have enforced the law, and the claim will look very unattractive to a Judge.
I think you might mis understand me
What I am saying is the council should of enforced the law in 2007 with the previous owner.
We realised during our appeal that our appeal was going to fail because most of the buildings were not built with in the criteria of PD.
Our so called planning experts were the same as the previous owners.(as they new the history of the site) They charged me I never paid and they never pursed there invoice.
Our loss is had the council done the simpliest of checks on these building I would not of had to demolish them. Oh and they put me in court for not knocking them down quick enough and not restoring the land to the original level. Which is impossible as I never lived there prior to the breach and the land had not been surveyed.
I told them it was impossible to restore the land to the original level but for some reason the summons then said restore the land to the original condition.
The court didn't give a scooby do that the summons never matched the enforcement order.
* It's "would/should have", not "would/should of".
I think you might mis understand me
What I am saying is the council should of enforced the law in 2007 with the previous owner.
We realised during our appeal that our appeal was going to fail because most of the buildings were not built with in the criteria of PD.
Our so called planning experts were the same as the previous owners.(as they new the history of the site) They charged me I never paid and they never pursed there invoice.
Our loss is had the council done the simpliest of checks on these building I would not of had to demolish them. Oh and they put me in court for not knocking them down quick enough and not restoring the land to the original level. Which is impossible as I never lived there prior to the breach and the land had not been surveyed.
I told them it was impossible to restore the land to the original level but for some reason the summons then said restore the land to the original condition.
The court didn't give a scooby do that the summons never matched the enforcement order.
* It's "would/should have", not "would/should of".
Art0ir said:
Absolutely nothing of value to add, but that looks like an epic pad.
Thanks. It is a great piece of land.We are now re building the swimming pool, Gym and games room using as much material as possible from the old buildings. The new build is just over 2 meters away from the old pool building.
We do have a certificate of lawfullness for this build. Interesting the council refused on the grounds it was to big (Less than half the size of the other 7 buildings) but we one on appeal
hunton69 said:
I think you might mis understand me
What I am saying is the council should of enforced the law in 2007 with the previous owner.
...
I am not sure that I did misunderstand you, but in any event a complaint now about something that the Council did or failed to do in 2007 would, I think, be doomed to fail. I think that if you sue you will lose, and end up with a bill, but that is merely my view, and if you take another view yourself or can obtain a more favourable view from another lawyer, that's fine, but now I had better do some work. What I am saying is the council should of enforced the law in 2007 with the previous owner.
...
hunton69 said:
We also had a conversation with senior planners from the council prior to buying in 2009 and they informed us that 2 of the buildings in there view ok. The swimming pool and dog kennel.
They then told us in 2011 they were all illegal.
My question is why did the council decision differ on so many occasions.
It's not quite that simple, is it?They then told us in 2011 they were all illegal.
My question is why did the council decision differ on so many occasions.
Going by the planning documentation on the council's website, the 2011 decision was your appeal against the 2009 enforcement notice - and refers to previous enforcement action taken against the pool building. B'sides, it's all academic, isn't it? In Nov '12, you were granted the certificate of lawful development for the pool building. I presume that none of the seven or eight previous enforcement notices in the years before you bought the place were related to the swimming pool building?
BTW, how come the Land Registry think the most recent sale for the property was 2002?
(And in case you're wondering how I've found this out, d'you see the co-ordinates on the aerial shot you posted...?)
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 12th February 15:01
TooMany2cvs said:
It's not quite that simple, is it?
Going by the planning documentation on the council's website, the 2011 decision was your appeal against the 2009 enforcement notice - and refers to previous enforcement action taken against the pool building. B'sides, it's all academic, isn't it? In Nov '12, you were granted the certificate of lawful development for the pool building. I presume that none of the seven or eight previous enforcement notices in the years before you bought the place were related to the swimming pool building?
BTW, how come the Land Registry think the most recent sale for the property was 2002?
(And in case you're wondering how I've found this out, d'you see the co-ordinates on the aerial shot you posted...?)
I cannot answer for the Land registry.Going by the planning documentation on the council's website, the 2011 decision was your appeal against the 2009 enforcement notice - and refers to previous enforcement action taken against the pool building. B'sides, it's all academic, isn't it? In Nov '12, you were granted the certificate of lawful development for the pool building. I presume that none of the seven or eight previous enforcement notices in the years before you bought the place were related to the swimming pool building?
BTW, how come the Land Registry think the most recent sale for the property was 2002?
(And in case you're wondering how I've found this out, d'you see the co-ordinates on the aerial shot you posted...?)
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 12th February 15:01
I have no problem if you have established the location. I am however confused over your comment regarding the 7 or 8 enforcement notices. I thought there were only 4
My complaint is not about the appeal but about the failure of THREE RIVERS COUNCIL to investigate breaches of planning in 2007
I am very grateful of all the comments regarding this as I do not wish to purse a dead duck.
I am a business owner who has to make good when we do wrong.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff