Can I sue my council

[TooMany2cvs]

hunton69 said:

My complaint is not about the appeal but about the failure of THREE RIVERS COUNCIL to investigate breaches of planning in 2007

It's quite simple. They didn't "investigate" off their own bat. People complained, and they investigated the complaints.

There's no documents on the council's website relating to the two '07 complaints - both of which were investigated and closed with "No further action", as is one of the '09 complaints. In other words, the complaints that were made WERE investigated, and were dismissed as being groundless. The other '09 complaint is the one they issued an enforcement notice over, which you then appealed and - eventually - won.

You'd need to talk to the council to get copies of the documents to find out whether they were even on the same grounds. But I presume you've already done that, yes?

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

It's quite simple. They didn't "investigate" off their own bat. People complained, and they investigated the complaints.

There's no documents on the council's website relating to the two '07 complaints - both of which were investigated and closed with "No further action", as is one of the '09 complaints. In other words, the complaints that were made WERE investigated, and were dismissed as being groundless. The other '09 complaint is the one they issued an enforcement notice over, which you then appealed and - eventually - won.

You'd need to talk to the council to get copies of the documents to find out whether they were even on the same grounds. But I presume you've already done that, yes?

The 07 complaints were closed without further action. The question is why when in 2009
within 24 days the council changed there opinion on these buildings.

With respect I have to correct you we did not win in 2009, that case served me with an order to demolish.
In 2012 I applied for a new build (certificate of lawfullness) and won on appeal

[anonymous-user]

Regrets, hunton69, but the horse that you are flogging looks fit only for Asda burgers.

[TooMany2cvs]

hunton69 said:

With respect I have to correct you we did not win in 2009, that case served me with an order to demolish.
In 2012 I applied for a new build (certificate of lawfullness) and won on appeal

If this is a typical demonstration of your comprehension skills, I'm not surprised you're getting all excited.

[V8 Fettler]

OP, could you not build some sort of motocross track on your verdant lawns? In reality, all that open space is just being wasted. Employ a few locals on minimum wage for leverage when the complaints start rolling in.

[Duke147]

hunton69 said:

1. Any one can build under permitted development as long as the building fit the criteria.


2. 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.

1. Very true, but in this case the building work undertaken fails practically every criteria.
2. They may have picked it up in 2007 but decided that, on balance, taking action would not be in the interests of the local community. There would be no point for the council to request a planning application be submitted, spend 8 weeks determining it, taking up officer time for it to be either granted consent or, worse, for it to be refused. Another, revised application could then have been submitted. A further 8 weeks of time would follow for determination. If refused at this stage then you, as the applicant, could appeal on one or both applications, that is if an appeal wasn't already running on the first application. If it was seen that an appeal could be upheld then why waste all that time, effort and tax-payers' money?

From the looks of it the further complaint and your endeavours to add even more has been seen as an attempt at Michael extraction and that action is now required. Either that or there's a different boss making the decisions now and they are less tolerant of transgressions.

The bottom line is; if you knew of the enforcement action before you bought the place then on your head be it. If you were unaware then you need to be asking questions of your solicitor and if he specifically asked on the Land Charges Search request to have the Enforcement Register checked.

[economicpygmy]

I find it amazing that anyone has complained, its not like you neighbors are close by. Its this kind of stupidity that leads to rampant house prices because no one wants any building of any kind. If I was a town planner Id make it known that plot looks ripe for 5 houses.

Edited by economicpygmy on Friday 8th August 10:35

[Steffan]

Duke147 said:

hunton69 said:

1. Any one can build under permitted development as long as the building fit the criteria.


2. 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.

1. Very true, but in this case the building work undertaken fails practically every criteria.
2. They may have picked it up in 2007 but decided that, on balance, taking action would not be in the interests of the local community. There would be no point for the council to request a planning application be submitted, spend 8 weeks determining it, taking up officer time for it to be either granted consent or, worse, for it to be refused. Another, revised application could then have been submitted. A further 8 weeks of time would follow for determination. If refused at this stage then you, as the applicant, could appeal on one or both applications, that is if an appeal wasn't already running on the first application. If it was seen that an appeal could be upheld then why waste all that time, effort and tax-payers' money?

From the looks of it the further complaint and your endeavours to add even more has been seen as an attempt at Michael extraction and that action is now required. Either that or there's a different boss making the decisions now and they are less tolerant of transgressions.

The bottom line is; if you knew of the enforcement action before you bought the place then on your head be it. If you were unaware then you need to be asking questions of your solicitor and if he specifically asked on the Land Charges Search request to have the Enforcement Register checked.

Good solid practical advice IMO. Your solicitor should have made you fully aware of the inadequacies on planning and lawful use prior to purchase. If he did and you bought with full knowledge then OYH. If he did not then there is your obvious route.

[sleep envy]

Did your conveyancer suggest you take out indemnity insurance?

[pork911]

so hunton how much did you know at purchase and how much did you assume previous inaction was a guide to the future?

I can't imagine it became news to you afterwards or the thread would be 'can I sue my solicitor and or planning specialist'

[hunton69]

pork911 said:

so hunton how much did you know at purchase and how much did you assume previous inaction was a guide to the future?

I can't imagine it became news to you afterwards or the thread would be 'can I sue my solicitor and or planning specialist'

The property first came to market in September 2009. The estate agent advert stated that some od the 7 out buildings may not be legal. On 2 Novemebr I spoke to a team leader at the council who told me that there was an emforcement case opened and that some of the buildings were not legal and would have to come down. Did not say which ones. We also contacted the planning company that the previous owner used. He could not see a problem with any of the buildings.
We also new some of the history of the house because my wifes sister lives on the other side of the road and my Father in law has a small farm 800 meters away and knew of the previous owner.
We checked the planning history and also knew that there had been two enforcement cases in 2007.
The fact that there was an enforcement case opened did not worry us as we never wanted to keep all the buildings. Knowing that there had been 2 investigations and the fact someone at the council told us that only some of the buildings supported out view.
We tried to buy the property then but the estate agent kept on upping the price telling us that other buys were increasing there offers. The price was know out of reach for us.
In June 2010 the property had not sold and went to auction we purchased at auction at the price that we were prepared to pay in 2009

The day we got the keys the council visited the proprty following that visit a senior planning office wrote to us saying the swimming pool and dog kennel could stay but the others would have to be demolished. Another site meeting followed (with the team leader that I had spoken to in 2009) in Oct 10 again told me that the Swimming pool and dog kennel could stay. We also have two letters from the same officer that he wrote to other prospective buyers solicitors with aerial photos. (we now know these letters are worthless as there is a disclaimer at the bottom of each letter saying its only his opinion)

The problem now arose as I did not want the dog kennel but one of the other buildings (dog kennel blocks a view from the house and can be seen from the road)
I then pissed them of because I refused a fouth visit I told them that they should of collected all the info on the privious 3 ( it felt like every one from the office wantrd a butchers at the property)
Then the bombshell. An enforcement notice drops through the door telling us we have to demolish all the building because now none of them are in the curtilage of the property.
We appeal but the second part of the order says that if we when the argument over curtilage then the 2 bungelows and 3 garages are not incidental to the dwelling house.
At appeal we loose the curtilage issue.

We were gutted at the time however over the next couple of years massive cracks appear in the swimming pool. We have now demolished it. The main ridge beam 19.2 meters long was made of wood Building control at the council passed that design.

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

It's quite simple. They didn't "investigate" off their own bat. People complained, and they investigated the complaints.

There's no documents on the council's website relating to the two '07 complaints - both of which were investigated and closed with "No further action", as is one of the '09 complaints. In other words, the complaints that were made WERE investigated, and were dismissed as being groundless. The other '09 complaint is the one they issued an enforcement notice over, which you then appealed and - eventually - won.

You'd need to talk to the council to get copies of the documents to find out whether they were even on the same grounds. But I presume you've already done that, yes?

Thanks for that. I did not know we could get copies of the documents.

[TooMany2cvs]

hunton69 said:

The property first came to market in September 2009.

The complaint which was upheld was received on the 8th October 2009.

Unless the purchase reached completion in _record_ time, then the searches your solicitor carried out should have included it.

hunton69 said:

On 2 Novemebr

You don't give a completion date for the sale, but I presume that was still prior to completion.

hunton69 said:

I spoke to a team leader at the council who told me that there was an emforcement case opened and that some of the buildings were not legal and would have to come down. Did not say which ones.

Right. So you knew about it at the time of purchase, but...

hunton69 said:

The fact that there was an enforcement case opened did not worry us

So what exactly do you want to sue them for? The fact your own sang-froid caused you a couple of years of hassle?
What exactly do you want out of it? You got the certificate in 2012 anyway.

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 13th February 08:24

[anonymous-user]

Yes. The first question for anyone thinking of suing - what is your objective here? Litigation does not deliver vengeance, therapy, closure etc. It can sometimes net you some cash, but in this case would net you a bill, hassle and a world of bum pain.

A side note: Three Rivers Council gives its name to the leading case on the tort of misfeasance in public office. The Council sued the Bank of England for crappy regulation in relation to the BCCI farrago, in which the council lost much public wonga.

NB - no, OP, please do not even THINK of going there! Your case is a bazillion miles from a misfeasance case.

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

So what exactly do you want to sue them for? The fact your own sang-froid caused you a couple of years of hassle?
What exactly do you want out of it? You got the certificate in 2012 anyway.

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 13th February 08:24

Purchase Aug 2011

I want to sue them for the demolition of 3 buildings.
The dog Kennel, Swimming pool, and one Bungalow. The rebuild of the swimming pool and stress that this has caused.

My reasons are

If there enforcement case was investigated properly then they should of served an enforcement notice to demolish those buildings to the previous owner in 2007.
The fact that they did not must mean that they are negligent or corrupt.
(the talk from the neighbours is he was bunging the council)
The council has admitted that the officers did not consider if those buildings were built within the curtilage of the property. They also admit that they did not consider if they were incidental to the dwelling house. I can prove that the pool building is over height.
Permitted development class E is as simple as
The buildings must be in the curtilage of the property
They must not exceed 50% of that curtilage
hey must be incidental to the dwelling house
They must not be higher than 4 meters
They must be at least 2 meters away from the curtilage boundary

What did they check?

I forgot to add that the previous owner on his plans had a red line showing what he believed to be the curtilage boundary.
He must of been very confident because he built those 3 buildings on the boundary line.
While doing our appeal my so called planning experts were gob smacked.

I believe that the council have to be accountable for there actions.

I guess I am wrong
I want to thank you for all your comments it has made me look at it diffently

[TooMany2cvs]

hunton69 said:

Purchase Aug 2011

My bad. I mis-remembered that you'd bought in '09.

That gives you even fewer legs to stand on, then, since the original complaint which was upheld was back in 2009, before YOU bought the place.
YOU then appealed that in 2011, but your appeal was refused.
YOU then submitted a request for a legal completion certificate in 2011 - which was refused.
YOU then appealed that in 2012, and that appeal was granted.

hunton69 said:

I want to sue them for the demolition of 3 buildings.
The dog Kennel, Swimming pool, and one Bungalow. The rebuild of the swimming pool

Sue them for what? The cost? You BOUGHT the place in full knowledge of the fact they had an outstanding, upheld, complaint against them which may cause them to be demolished, ffs! If you didn't take that into account in negotiating the price, then that's not the council's fault, is it?

hunton69 said:

and stress that this has caused.

Perhaps if you'd bothered to take the PRE-EXISTING complaint seriously when you bought the place, you wouldn't have brought the stress on yourself?

hunton69 said:

What did they check?

The documents aren't public for anything but your '11 application. For the '09 complaint, ask the solicitor who would have brought it to your attention when you bought the place. For the later appeals, you could perhaps check your own records, since you would have been heavily involved.

hunton69 said:

While doing our appeal my so called planning experts were gob smacked.

At your intransigence?

hunton69 said:

I believe that the council have to be accountable for there actions.

They have. You had the right to appeal. You appealed both. You lost the pre-existing complaint, you won the later application.

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 13th February 10:50

[BJG1]

I have nothing of use to add but looking at that photo, the council seem like a bunch of jobsworths, can't see how any of those buildings have an impact on anyone else.

[TooMany2cvs]

BJG1 said:

I have nothing of use to add but looking at that photo, the council seem like a bunch of jobsworths, can't see how any of those buildings have an impact on anyone else.

Google the co-ordinates on the pic, and think about the slightly wider issues. The house is on the very edge of the (frankly) messy and not particularly classy urban sprawl of a fairly large and not particularly picturesque town, where it meets the (legally protected since 1935) Green Belt around London, barely a minute from the M25 - the first bit of green that you come to as you leave the London metropolitan sprawl. Without that protected, there'd be constant suburbia all the way to Birmingham before you knew what'd happened.

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

They have. You had the right to appeal. You appealed both. You lost the pre-existing complaint, you won the later application.

Sorry got the date wrong I purchased in Aug 2010

The enforcement case that was opened in 2009 was concluded in April 2011 that served us a notice to demolish all 7 buildings.
The appeal that we won in 2012 was for a new build. Not the existing one.

Therefor when I purchased the property Yes I knew there was a pending case but why would there be a different result when there had been 2 cases in 2007. Nothing had changed at the property during that period.
The only change was that the original office had retired.
We were also told by the team leader and senior planning office before we purchased and again after we purchased (site meeting Oct 2010)that some but not all would have to be demolished. As I have said we wanted to demolish some so again did not bother us.

[hunton69]

Duke147 said:

1. Very true, but in this case the building work undertaken fails practically every criteria.
2. They may have picked it up in 2007 but decided that, on balance, taking action would not be in the interests of the local community. There would be no point for the council to request a planning application be submitted, spend 8 weeks determining it, taking up officer time for it to be either granted consent or, worse, for it to be refused. Another, revised application could then have been submitted. A further 8 weeks of time would follow for determination. If refused at this stage then you, as the applicant, could appeal on one or both applications, that is if an appeal wasn't already running on the first application. If it was seen that an appeal could be upheld then why waste all that time, effort and tax-payers' money?

From the looks of it the further complaint and your endeavours to add even more has been seen as an attempt at Michael extraction and that action is now required. Either that or there's a different boss making the decisions now and they are less tolerant of transgressions.

The bottom line is; if you knew of the enforcement action before you bought the place then on your head be it. If you were unaware then you need to be asking questions of your solicitor and if he specifically asked on the Land Charges Search request to have the Enforcement Register checked.

The land in question is green belt and they have always said to me that they take green belt development very seriously so I don't understand your second point. Why would it not be in the interests of the local community when it is in 2011

Again I do not understand what you mean by "my endeavours to add even more"
I never added any building work.