Can I sue my council

[TooMany2cvs]

hunton69 said:

Therefor when I purchased the property Yes I knew there was a pending case

And there goes any hope you might have of winning any case.

hunton69 said:

but why would there be a different result when there had been 2 cases in 2007.

Because, in EACH of the four cases (two '07, two '09), they were only investigating the exact complaint made. Not the wider issues. Only one of the four was upheld.

[TooMany2cvs]

hunton69 said:

The appeal that we won in 2012 was for a new build. Not the existing one.

hunton69 said:

I never added any building work.

A little more consistency would help your credibility.

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

A little more consistency would help your credibility.

Sorry but confused by that comment

[Red Devil]

hunton69 said:

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.

I think you have identified your real problem right there. Doesn't the fact that they never pursued you for the debt tell you anything?

hunton69 said:

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.

Is this the same outfit as above or another lot? If it was the same, it reeks worse than a Grimsby trawler on a hot day.

The previous owner and his 'planning experts' may or may not have been in cahoots with the now retired Council planning officer. Unless you can prove it, I reckon you're in for a protracted battle and a large bill for legal fees.

Also, either your solicitor has some questions to answer or you ignored his/her advice. I'm wondering if ALL due diligence was completed prior to the auction.

[hunton69]

Red Devil said:

Is this the same outfit as above or another lot? If it was the same, it reeks worse than a Grimsby trawler on a hot day.

We used the same planners and your right we don't use them any more.
The appeal we won was handled by someone else.
I started knocking down 1 on the bungalows within weeks of buying the property(Before the order to demolish) and his advice was why.

The previous owner and his 'planning experts' may or may not have been in cahoots with the now retired Council planning officer. Unless you can prove it, I reckon you're in for a protracted battle and a large bill for legal fees.

Also, either your solicitor has some questions to answer or you ignored his/her advice. I'm wondering if ALL due diligence was completed prior to the auction.

No Complaints about solicitor as we agree buildings would come down. Did not expect them all.

[Steffan]

hunton69 said:

Red Devil said:

Is this the same outfit as above or another lot? If it was the same, it reeks worse than a Grimsby trawler on a hot day.

We used the same planners and your right we don't use them any more.
The appeal we won was handled by someone else.
I started knocking down 1 on the bungalows within weeks of buying the property(Before the order to demolish) and his advice was why.

The previous owner and his 'planning experts' may or may not have been in cahoots with the now retired Council planning officer. Unless you can prove it, I reckon you're in for a protracted battle and a large bill for legal fees.

Also, either your solicitor has some questions to answer or you ignored his/her advice. I'm wondering if ALL due diligence was completed prior to the auction.

No Complaints about solicitor as we agree buildings would come down. Did not expect them all.

I must admit I cannot see the causation of the OP's possible claim. If he know about the illegality and demolition which "No complaints about the Solicitor" suggests he did where is his loss? I must admit I am lost on this subject.

[hunton69]

Steffan said:

I must admit I cannot see the causation of the OP's possible claim. If he know about the illegality and demolition which "No complaints about the Solicitor" suggests he did where is his loss? I must admit I am lost on this subject.

I may be thick but

In 2010 I thought I purched a house with 7 out buildings.

I knew that the council had investigated the legality of those 7 buildings not once but twice (in 2007)and they closed both cases without any action which meant that the council was satisfied that the buildings were legal.
I agree that they then opened another case in 2009 (The queation is why open that case they had already investigated twice) Why open a third and why would the reult differ from the first two.

I have spoken to the LGO informally and they are surprised why a third case would differ from the first two.

Am I missing something from you guys

[Steffan]

hunton69 said:

Steffan said:

I must admit I cannot see the causation of the OP's possible claim. If he know about the illegality and demolition which "No complaints about the Solicitor" suggests he did where is his loss? I must admit I am lost on this subject.

I may be thick but

In 2010 I thought I purched a house with 7 out buildings.

I knew that the council had investigated the legality of those 7 buildings not once but twice (in 2007)and they closed both cases without any action which meant that the council was satisfied that the buildings were legal.
I agree that they then opened another case in 2009 (The queation is why open that case they had already investigated twice) Why open a third and why would the reult differ from the first two.

I have spoken to the LGO informally and they are surprised why a third case would differ from the first two.

Am I missing something from you guys

I think you are. This is of course only my opinion. You should seek the advice of a Solicitor specialising in conveyancing matters. My questions to you are,firstly, did you know at the time of the purchase that these were unlawful buildings and might have to be demolished? Secondly did the Solicitor who acted for you carry out the appropriate searches and were you warned that these buildings did not have planning consent and might require demolition prior to purchase? If the answer to the two questions is yes, then you bought with full awareness of the risk you were taking and as far as I can see entered willingly into the contract fully aware of the risk and cannot seek recompense for your informed decision. I do hope this helps.

[hunton69]

Steffan said:

I think you are. This is of course only my opinion. You should seek the advice of a Solicitor specialising in conveyancing matters. My questions to you are,firstly, did you know at the time of the purchase that these were unlawful buildings and might have to be demolished? Secondly did the Solicitor who acted for you carry out the appropriate searches and were you warned that these buildings did not have planning consent and might require demolition prior to purchase? If the answer to the two questions is yes, then you bought with full awareness of the risk you were taking and as far as I can see entered willingly into the contract fully aware of the risk and cannot seek recompense for your informed decision. I do hope this helps.

Thanks for your first line

I am struggling to understand you as I have said in this thread many times YES I KNEW THERE was an enforcment case pending.
The question is why would the third case differ from the first two?

Class E PD says you can have a swimming pool. The planners from 2007 until Dec 2011 agreed i could have a swimming pool. but in 2012 they changed there mind.


and we are meeting a lawer tommorow

[Beyond Rational]

hunton69 said:

I have made a complaint against the council stating that there failure to carry out there duty as planners has resulted in the bank selling a property that had illegal buildings on and that the simpliest of checks by there planners would of revealed that.
There response is basically that they had up to 4 years to take enforcment action and that there quote "its not reasonable for you to rely on any period of inaction"

Were the buildings 'illegal' at the point of sale? A planning breach in itself is not illegal. It was at the planners discretion, not duty, to consider to harm of the development to the neighbourhood. The earliest inspections may not have established this, but subsequent complaints suggests that action was in the public interest/of benefit, which leads them to later issue an enforcement notice.

You may want to look at SN/SC/1579.

[TooMany2cvs]

hunton69 said:

I knew that the council had investigated the legality of those 7 buildings not once but twice (in 2007)
I agree that they then opened another case in 2009 (The queation is why open that case they had already investigated twice) Why open a third and why would the reult differ from the first two.

Am I missing something from you guys

Yes, you are. Despite it having been explained forty-seven times already.

They did not "investigate the legality of those 7 buildings". They investigated four SPECIFIC complaints. And ONLY those four SPECIFIC complaints. And, I'm presuming, those four complaints were all different - hence there being a different outcome for one of them.

[Steffan]

hunton69 said:

Steffan said:

I think you are. This is of course only my opinion. You should seek the advice of a Solicitor specialising in conveyancing matters. My questions to you are,firstly, did you know at the time of the purchase that these were unlawful buildings and might have to be demolished? Secondly did the Solicitor who acted for you carry out the appropriate searches and were you warned that these buildings did not have planning consent and might require demolition prior to purchase? If the answer to the two questions is yes, then you bought with full awareness of the risk you were taking and as far as I can see entered willingly into the contract fully aware of the risk and cannot seek recompense for your informed decision. I do hope this helps.

Thanks for your first line

I am struggling to understand you as I have said in this thread many times YES I KNEW THERE was an enforcment case pending.
The question is why would the third case differ from the first two?

Class E PD says you can have a swimming pool. The planners from 2007 until Dec 2011 agreed i could have a swimming pool. but in 2012 they changed there mind.


and we are meeting a lawer tommorow

[/

Good to hear you are consulting a Solicitor. Since you knew the enforcement's were pending then I cannot see a successful action. However your lawyer should advise you fully. Perhaps he can explain why the third case differed from the others. I still cannot see the basis of a successful action, given the facts.

[bltamil1]

Please forgive me if I have missed it, but I'm not clear on what it is you hope to achieve from any action against the Council?

Ignoring your chances of success, which would appear to be zero in any case, what do you estimate your loss to be? i.e. What restorative action are you seeking?

[pork911]

hunton69 said:

I may be thick but

In 2010 I thought I purched a house with 7 out buildings.

I knew that the council had investigated the legality of those 7 buildings not once but twice (in 2007)and they closed both cases without any action which meant that the council was satisfied that the buildings were legal.
I agree that they then opened another case in 2009 (The queation is why open that case they had already investigated twice) Why open a third and why would the reult differ from the first two.

I have spoken to the LGO informally and they are surprised why a third case would differ from the first two.

Am I missing something from you guys

There having been two previous cases must show even you the fallacy of your reasoning - why would they have opened a second case? (if investigating and taking no action means (it doesn't ) a declaration of lawfulness anyone can rely on and that no further determination could reach a different conclusion - why a second investigation?)

In another post you referred to council letters to other people's solicitors (as if you might be able to rely on them) and talk of 'now' knowing the disclaimer at the bottom made it just an opinion. when you first read those letters was the disclaimer invisible? Even if it was, taking your own proper advice would have involved being told the value of the letters and that you shouldn't unreasonably rely on them.

You say you tried to buy it but were told others were offering more. Yet you later bought it at auction for the amount you had offered before. Did you not consider why others with more money hadn't gone through with it or were you blinded by the apparent bargain? Why would the seller have put it to auction at all with such apparent interest? and with a reserve below one of the earlier lower offers? Presumably with auction you had less time (even if inclined) to carry out full due diligence once you'd 'won' and were in it. what due diligence was done and what advice sought?

you say you knew some of the buildings were likely illegal but not all. did you actually know which was which? even if you did, on what basis do you believe failure to act on building one equates to 'legal and always so'?

that you are asking if you can sue the council rather than your solicitors or planning specialists speaks volumes. without getting lost in detail you should be able to simply state why in principle you would possibly think you have a cause of action against them. what duty did they owe you and how have they breached that? even if they erred and you relied on that, I can't see how that's enough.

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

Yes, you are. Despite it having been explained forty-seven times already.

They did not "investigate the legality of those 7 buildings". They investigated four SPECIFIC complaints. And ONLY those four SPECIFIC complaints. And, I'm presuming, those four complaints were all different - hence there being a different outcome for one of them.

The complaints were not different.

The complaints were from neighbours who complained to the council that they beleived there was a breach of planning. They thought that he was building a small housing estate.

The neighbours have told me that many times. The council's rsponse was "The buildings are permitted development" Unfortunatly as has been proved they are not permitted development. They weren't in 2007 and they are not in 2010 when we puchased.
The council had all the information in 2007 and they chose to ignore it.

The council employed the planning officers to carry out the job of planning and enforcement. In 2007 they failed.
The question is are they accountable for there failure.

[hunton69]

Beyond Rational said:

Were the buildings 'illegal' at the point of sale? A planning breach in itself is not illegal. It was at the planners discretion, not duty, to consider to harm of the development to the neighbourhood. The earliest inspections may not have established this, but subsequent complaints suggests that action was in the public interest/of benefit, which leads them to later issue an enforcement notice.

You may want to look at SN/SC/1579.

7
Not all but some yes were not permitted development.

The 3 garages (if there within the curtilage of the property) could be classed as incidental to the dwelling house if the owners of the house had something to put in them.
The 2 bungelows again have to be in curtilage but only 1 of then could be classsed as incidental to the dwelling house as it could be turned into a snooker room and gym. (some inspectors don't like the fact that the building looks residential others don't care} I have trawled through many appeals.
So to have 2 identical bungalows could NEVER be legal
The swimming pool is incidental to the dwelling house. The problem with this one is it's 30 cm to high to be PD.

The dog kennel could be classed as incidental to the dwelling house. You would have to justify the size to be a dog kennel This was 9 meters by 6 meters. |So if you had 1 dog it would fail.

Another problem was the bungalow next to the swimming pool, the swimming pool and dog kennel has to be built at least 2 meters away from the curtilage boundary. These were not 2 meters away.
We know have plans that prove this. This was only confirned to me in Aug 2013.
The council had those plans in 2007

So in 2007 the planning officers must of been blind.

[TooMany2cvs]

hunton69 said:

The complaints were not different.

The complaints were from neighbours who complained to the council that they beleived there was a breach of planning. They thought that he was building a small housing estate.

The neighbours have told me that many times.

You've now got copies of all the related documentation, have you? Or are you going by hearsay?

[hunton69]

1 of the 2 bungalows

Does that look like a permitted development building.

Permitted development buildings must not be lived in. You can have a toilet and a sink to wash your hands. Must not have kithcens or beds in.

They can only house things such as games rooms, Snooker rooms, Gym,and Swimming pool

Edited by hunton69 on Friday 14th February 14:41

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

You've now got copies of all the related documentation, have you? Or are you going by hearsay?

Met with a solicitor today who is going to request them. If that fails she has told me that the previous owner can get copies. I have spoken to him recently.

It's not hear say.

We have an original letter and verbal statements. Ironically some of those that complained now don't want them demolished. Funny lot

My inlaws have lived in this area for 40 years.

[hunton69]

Beyond Rational said:

Were the buildings 'illegal' at the point of sale? A planning breach in itself is not illegal. It was at the planners discretion, not duty, to consider to harm of the development to the neighbourhood. The earliest inspections may not have established this, but subsequent complaints suggests that action was in the public interest/of benefit, which leads them to later issue an enforcement notice.

You may want to look at SN/SC/1579.

Fine line between planners discretion and something else.

There were 2 changes the enforcment office and me becoming the owner. Nothing else at the property changed.

I do understand that document as it says enforcement is discretionary if you check out the scale of these buildings 708 sq meters I think that would support a case for then to take action

My application for a certificate of lawfullness on my new build in 2012 was 340 sq meters they refused that on the grounds it was to large.

Edited by hunton69 on Friday 14th February 15:31