Can I sue my council

[Steffan]

hunton69 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

The red highlighted the buildings they referred to.
You _assumed_ the green meant more than it did.

But the question from all the solicitors (acting for propective buyers)to the council was questioning the legality of all 7 buildings not 5 of them. The councils reply is that they now believe 5 are unlawfull.
Why would they only have an opinion on 5 buildings when the questions were about 7 buildings. That does not make sense. If they did not take into account the other 2 buildings then I believe there answer was misleading.
So I would not say that we have assumed that the green ones mean't more

You may receive the support on an Internet forum you are seeking. Or you may not.

However the only way to test this is to take action against the decisions of the authority. I wish you well with that. There will be considerable costs I fear. As yet I have not seen the crisp clear reasoning and dissertaion of the facts that would suggest you have a real chance. But you are in by far the best position, to judge.Given your obvious sense of being seriously misled by the authority I would probably have a go. Up to you.

[TooMany2cvs]

hunton69 said:

Why would they only have an opinion on 5 buildings when the questions were about 7 buildings. That does not make sense.

It makes perfect sense.

Here are 7 oranges. Five are rotten. (Are the other two good? I don't know. I've not checked 'em yet.)
But you're assuming that, because I only said "Five are rotten", I'm promising you faithfully the other two are definitely good. I'm not.

[Steffan]

TooMany2cvs said:

hunton69 said:

Why would they only have an opinion on 5 buildings when the questions were about 7 buildings. That does not make sense.

It makes perfect sense.

Here are 7 oranges. Five are rotten. (Are the other two good? I don't know. I've not checked 'em yet.)
But you're assuming that, because I only said "Five are rotten", I'm promising you faithfully the other two are definitely good. I'm not.

I am inclined to agree.

When such detail and correspondence has progressed for some time attempting to get a clear picture of the precise detail of wording etc of documents s unrewarding on the net IMO. The result could be in favour of the OP. Or the authority may have acted lawfully. Only way to test this is to bite the bullet. If the OP thinks he as a case, then take the case forward. Or not.

[anonymous-user]

Wow! Is this still meandering on? The OP wants to sue the local authority in respect of something that the Council failed to do in 2007. He can't. The public law time limit expired back in 2007, and the private law time limit (even assuming that there was a private law claim, and there wasn't) expired in 2013.

[anonymous-user]

blueg33 said:

Op

I have concluded that this one is too tricky for an internet forum to provide any useful advvice above what you already have. You need a planning lawyer, not a planning consultant or a regular lawyer, but a specialist with proper in depth legal knowledge and experience of the planning act as applied and judgements that have been made the create precedent.

I am not sure what a "regular lawyer" is, and am not sure that I agree that a planning lawyer is to to be taken as some sort of super lawyer, but this sort of stuff is bang up my alley, so to speak, and I can tell the OP for free that he is on a hiding to nothing. He won't listen to that, as the purpose of threads such as this is not to seek informed advice but to get enough "yeah, mate, you're on, sue 'em for every penny" votes from the bloke in pub crowd.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 23 August 13:14

[blueg33]

Breadvan72 said:

blueg33 said:

Op

I have concluded that this one is too tricky for an internet forum to provide any useful advvice above what you already have. You need a planning lawyer, not a planning consultant or a regular lawyer, but a specialist with proper in depth legal knowledge and experience of the planning act as applied and judgements that have been made the create precedent.

I am not sure what a "regular lawyer", and am not sure that I agree that a planning lawyer is to to be taken as some sort of super lawyer, but this sort of stuff is bang up my alley, so to speak, and I can tell the OP for free that he is on a hiding to nothing. He won't listen to that, as the purpose of threads such as this is not to seek informed advice but to get enough "yeah, mate, you're on, sue 'em for every penny" votes from the bloke in pub crowd.

Planning lawyer specialises in planning stuff, like a conveyancing lawyer specialises in conveyancing, its not hard to work out. The one I use is a former planning Barrister. I didnt say he was a super lawyer, I said he will have more of the releveant experience because he does it day in day out.

I can analyse soil load bearing capacity but I donlt do it often, I am much better at structuring property development and investment deals because I do it every day.

[Steffan]

blueg33 said:

Breadvan72 said:

blueg33 said:

Op

I have concluded that this one is too tricky for an internet forum to provide any useful advvice above what you already have. You need a planning lawyer, not a planning consultant or a regular lawyer, but a specialist with proper in depth legal knowledge and experience of the planning act as applied and judgements that have been made the create precedent.

I am not sure what a "regular lawyer", and am not sure that I agree that a planning lawyer is to to be taken as some sort of super lawyer, but this sort of stuff is bang up my alley, so to speak, and I can tell the OP for free that he is on a hiding to nothing. He won't listen to that, as the purpose of threads such as this is not to seek informed advice but to get enough "yeah, mate, you're on, sue 'em for every penny" votes from the bloke in pub crowd.

Planning lawyer specialises in planning stuff, like a conveyancing lawyer specialises in conveyancing, its not hard to work out. The one I use is a former planning Barrister. I didnt say he was a super lawyer, I said he will have more of the releveant experience because he does it day in day out.

I can analyse soil load bearing capacity but I donlt do it often, I am much better at structuring property development and investment deals because I do it every day.

Breadvan72 is a solicitor and knowledgeable in that area. That being the cases ignoring his advice could be most unwise. If the reason for posting is just to joust on the net per se then I can understand the reply. However the OP has a fine judgement to make. Talking planning authorities on is an expensive business and if the OP loses then he may end up with a lot of costs.

Since Breadvan72 is doubtful of the outcome or indeed pretty certain that the OP would lose, which he seems to be, then I respectfully suggest ignoring his advice is not sensible. I posted earlier that I had my doubts and intimes gone by I have appealed many planning decisions and never yet lost an appeal. But I always used very effective counsel and professionals. Who were not cheap but the benefits of the success and the added value to the developments made this very worthwhile. And I took their advice whether I liked it or not.

In this case I do think the OP needs to consider the downside risk most carefully. Appealing is not a cheap process especially if you lose and costs are awarded against you. Up to the OP.

[anonymous-user]

I am not a solicitor.

[Steffan]

Breadvan72 said:

I am not a solicitor.

Humble apologies I presume you are a barrister in that case. My caveat to the OP still applies.

[anonymous-user]

It's alright, I've been called worse!

[Vaud]

Breadvan72 said:

It's alright, I've been called worse!

Barista?

[Steffan]

Breadvan72 said:

It's alright, I've been called worse!

Taxi Cab perhaps?

Without a doubt the leading tax barristers of their day remain the brightest and mst intelligent individuals I have ever met. Withering intelligence and unmatcheable ability to grasp the critical matters in a matter of seonds. I always felt that the information was going into their brains in conversation much faster than it actually came out of mine. Quite visibly bright and ruthless in getting to the germain points of each case. Often very off the wall as people themselves but by God they were focused and bright. I thoroughly enjoyed the verbal jousting.

[hunton69]

Breadvan72 said:

I am not a solicitor.

Thank you for your replies.

Wow

You know the answers and yet you don't know all the facts.

And your in the legal profession.

The information I have revealed on this forum is just the tip of the ice berg.

[anonymous-user]

So, what is the point of this thread? If you want advice, you have to state the facts. You have previously stated what you say are the facts that give rise to your claim. On the facts you have stated, you have no claim. You don't like that advice because it doesn't accord with what you want to hear, so you say there are some other facts, but don't say what those are. In other words, a fairly typical SPL thread.

[anonymous-user]

PS; readers may wish to have a look at page 1 of this thread. The OP stated what he says his complaint is. I gave him the same advice as I give now. That was in February. I wonder if the OP has instructed a professional adviser since then, or if he is still hoping for validation via the internet.

[Jon1967x]

hunton69 said:

You know the answers and yet you don't know all the facts.

And your in the legal profession.

The information I have revealed on this forum is just the tip of the ice berg.

Thanks for wasting everyone's time.

Most of us are now rooting for the council to send in the bull dozers.

[photosnob]

OP - If I were you id sue breadvan. He is giving qualified legal advice to you, and doesn't even have all the facts. Clearly this is putting you at a disadvantage, as it's delaying your litigation. Plus he might have insurance so they would probably pay out without putting up too much if a fight.

[anonymous-user]

Yeah, slam dunker. As a bonus, the OP can use the money to sue the Government for not telling him to change some ten year old tyres on his motorhome (see a nearby thread). It's always someone else's fault.

[dingg]

if BV is correct about the time bar issue, then its slam dunk case over whatever the facts of the case are.

thats all the OP needs to check up on

[tenpenceshort]

Having been at the heart of a dispute with a local authority, the trouble is, like in any dispute where you have an iron the fire, you can quickly lose objectivity. This is when expert advice can help; not just in untangling the legal whats and whys, but also the wider issue of when and where you choose you're battles.

My own rule of thumb these days is, once it becomes about the dispute itself and winning so as not to lose, take a long hard look and work out if the battle is one that is worth or needs fighting at all. You might surprise yourself in how unimportant the result really is in the wider scheme of things (not necessarily aimed at the OP).