Can I sue my council

[The Surveyor]

Did you ever consider a retrospective planning application once it was shown that the buildings fall outside permitted development?

Paul

[hunton69]

The Surveyor said:

Did you ever consider a retrospective planning application once it was shown that the buildings fall outside permitted development?

Paul

Yes

But the council made it very clear after we purchased that was never going to happen.

The land in question is green belt. They will only let you extend your house by 40% so they would never allow that to be approved.

40% on this house with 4 acres would not effect any one but that is the max.

[TooMany2cvs]

hunton69 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

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?

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.

Riiiiight. So, no, you haven't seen the original complaints or the council responses to them. You're going solely off what the neighbours have said to you several years later...

I think you'll have a surprise when you see how the actual paperwork differs from the verbal version.

[Beyond Rational]

hunton69 said:

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

What did change was the number and maybe type, of complaints received. These may have meant that the planners could not continue to use their discretion as the number, or content of later complaints may have shown that it was in the public interest to take action.

[hunton69]

Beyond Rational said:

What did change was the number and maybe type, of complaints received. These may have meant that the planners could not continue to use their discretion as the number, or content of later complaints may have shown that it was in the public interest to take action.

Sorry I have to correct you.

In 2007 there were many complaints from neighbours so many that the previous owner has tod me (met him last summer) that the planning officer was visiting on a regular basis.
Also the neighbours were very concerned as to why there were so many buildings being built.

The council admit that the only reason why they opened the 2009 case was potential buyers enquiring about the buildings. Swimming pool, garages and dog kennel had lighs in and plastered the others did not.

The neighbours had given up by then.

This land is green belt and councils do not allow abuse on green belt land.

[bltamil1]

You still haven't explained what you hope to gain from this?

It seems the you were aware when you purchased the property that none of the 'ancillary' buildings had planning permission, and indeed were subject to enforcement action of some kind. You now seek to rely on some decisions made or not made in 2007 regarding the legality of these buildings, but I can't see what for?

Are you hoping to claim the purchase price from the Council? Do you really believe that you have suffered a loss by the Council's action or inaction some number of years before you bought the property?.

It appears that you bought the property with full awareness of the salient facts, and this has now gone South. The buildings are clearly not covered by PD rights, and absent either a planning permission or a certificate of lawful development were subject to enforcement action at any time. If your solicitor or conveyancer didn't advise of this, you may have a claim against them, but it appears that they did......

[Steffan]

bltamil1 said:

You still haven't explained what you hope to gain from this?

It seems the you were aware when you purchased the property that none of the 'ancillary' buildings had planning permission, and indeed were subject to enforcement action of some kind. You now seek to rely on some decisions made or not made in 2007 regarding the legality of these buildings, but I can't see what for?

Are you hoping to claim the purchase price from the Council? Do you really believe that you have suffered a loss by the Council's action or inaction some number of years before you bought the property?.

It appears that you bought the property with full awareness of the salient facts, and this has now gone South. The buildings are clearly not covered by PD rights, and absent either a planning permission or a certificate of lawful development were subject to enforcement action at any time. If your solicitor or conveyancer didn't advise of this, you may have a claim against them, but it appears that they did......

The facts given by the OP on PH clearly suggest the OP was well aware of the risk before purchase. Essentially my view: there is no basis for a claim.

[bltamil1]

Steffan said:

The facts given by the OP on PH clearly suggest the OP was well aware of the risk before purchase. Essentially my view: there is no basis for a claim.

Agreed, but I am still interested in what the OP considers the substance of his claim to be, regardless of its (seemingly non existent) merits.

The title of the thread is " Can I sue my Council?", my question remains as "what for?"

[Steffan]

bltamil1 said:

Steffan said:

The facts given by the OP on PH clearly suggest the OP was well aware of the risk before purchase. Essentially my view: there is no basis for a claim.

Agreed, but I am still interested in what the OP considers the substance of his claim to be, regardless of its (seemingly non existent) merits.

The title of the thread is " Can I sue my Council?", my question remains as "what for?"

Down to the OP. I have no idea "what for".

[hunton69]

bltamil1 said:

Agreed, but I am still interested in what the OP considers the substance of his claim to be, regardless of its (seemingly non existent) merits.

The title of the thread is " Can I sue my Council?", my question remains as "what for?"

The property consisted of a house and 7 buildings.
The enforcement case says unaurthorised outbuildings. It does not say all 7 unaurthorised out buildings.

So prior to buying we spoke to a planning team leader at the council who told me that SOME of the buildings in there view now were illegal. This was backed up by letters from a senior planning officer.
A swimming pool is ok as Permitted development so we felt sure that that building was legal and we knew one of the other buildings can be turned into a gym / games room which is ok as PD
So it never bothered us that the others would come down.
We also felt that because there had already been 2 cases in 2007 why would a third case have a different result.
After we bought the property again the council told us that the swimming pool and dog kennel were ok as PD.
5 months later they then decided to challenge the curtilage and decided that none of the buildings were in the curtilage.
I have it in writing from the council that they admit that the officer / officers in 2007 did not consider the curtilage.
The first principle of PD development is that the buildings have to be in curtilage,
So had the officers done there job I would not of bought the property believing I had a swimming pool.
Secondly why did they not conclude there investigation while the bank owned the property. (they owned it from September 2009 until Aug 2010) If they had then the property would of been sold knowing that any purchaser would have to demolish all of the buildings and the price would reflect that.

[10 Pence Short]

It sounds as if you did lot of supposing and not a lot of confirming. It may be unfair of me, but I suspect you didn't approach the matter more formally because you didn't want to bring it to the attention of the local authority.

Perhaps you could post up the relevant section of the conveyancing report provided by your solicitor which formed the basis of your commitment to the purchase?

[TooMany2cvs]

hunton69 said:

After we bought the property again the council told us that the swimming pool and dog kennel were ok as PD.
5 months later they then decided to challenge the curtilage and decided that none of the buildings were in the curtilage.

Except that's not true, is it?

The 2009 complaint which was upheld predated your 2010 purchase. Once you'd bought the place, you appealed that complaint in 2011 - and the original finding stood.

[bltamil1]

hunton69 said:

The property consisted of a house and 7 buildings.
The enforcement case says unaurthorised outbuildings. It does not say all 7 unaurthorised out buildings.

So prior to buying we spoke to a planning team leader at the council who told me that SOME of the buildings in there view now were illegal. This was backed up by letters from a senior planning officer.
A swimming pool is ok as Permitted development so we felt sure that that building was legal and we knew one of the other buildings can be turned into a gym / games room which is ok as PD
So it never bothered us that the others would come down.
We also felt that because there had already been 2 cases in 2007 why would a third case have a different result.
After we bought the property again the council told us that the swimming pool and dog kennel were ok as PD.
5 months later they then decided to challenge the curtilage and decided that none of the buildings were in the curtilage.
I have it in writing from the council that they admit that the officer / officers in 2007 did not consider the curtilage.
The first principle of PD development is that the buildings have to be in curtilage,
So had the officers done there job I would not of bought the property believing I had a swimming pool.
Secondly why did they not conclude there investigation while the bank owned the property. (they owned it from September 2009 until Aug 2010) If they had then the property would of been sold knowing that any purchaser would have to demolish all of the buildings and the price would reflect that.

I think I follow the sequence of events, although they are a bit confusing. It does seem as though the 2007 enforcement action was not exactly thorough, but the result would at best have been "no further action at this time" and doesn't prevent it being reopened at a later date (or dates).

So are you seeking a payment for loss of value of the property? If so, I think you are doomed to fail on several counts. Firstly you would have to show some failure in a duty TO YOU, which I don't think you can do. Secondly, you would need to evidence and quantify the loss suffered, and seeing as the outbuildings have never been legal I don't know how you would do this.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, you have already admitted that you knew SOME of the buildings were illegal. You also mentioned that the swimming pool was demolished because it was starting to crack due to poor construction?

As I and plenty of others have said this isn't going to yield any results for you.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a lawyer.

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

Except that's not true, is it?

The 2009 complaint which was upheld predated your 2010 purchase. Once you'd bought the place, you appealed that complaint in 2011 - and the original finding stood.

Thats correct

But senior managers told us that it was only some of the building that were unlawfull

If senior managers are involved then the disclaimers that they write become less effective.

Whats your opinion on the picture of the Bungalow? Do you understand class E permitted development?

and again I ask why would a third investigation have a different result

A swimming pool does not need a certificate of lawfullness to be legal.

All it needs to be is in the curtilage of the property.

All the officers had to do was establish if it was in curtilage nothing else. Why did they not do that on 2 occasions

[blueg33]

Hven't read the whole thread, but a good mate of mine and a fellow petrolhead was a planning barrister and is now a top flight planning lawyer. Let me know if you want me to contact him.

[10 Pence Short]

What did your solicitor's report say about the outbuildings prior to completion?

[TooMany2cvs]

hunton69 said:

and again I ask why would a third investigation have a different result

And again I point out that a different investigation into a different complaint may easily get a different result.

[bltamil1]

TooMany2cvs said:

hunton69 said:

and again I ask why would a third investigation have a different result

And again I point out that a different investigation into a different complaint may easily get a different result.

It may even be that a different investigation into the same complaint would have a different result, as circumstances may change.

You are correct that a swimming pool (and anything else for that matter) does not need a certificate of lawful development to be legal. The point of the certificate is that it formalises the situation, and removes any possibility of it being subsequently deemed illegal.

You still haven't said what you hope to gain from this. You can argue all day about who said what to who, and who should have done what, but unless you state what you believe you have lost as a result it is all a bit moot.

[hunton69]

bltamil1 said:

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, you have already admitted that you knew SOME of the buildings were illegal. You also mentioned that the swimming pool was demolished because it was starting to crack due to poor construction?

As I and plenty of others have said this isn't going to yield any results for you.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a lawyer.

As we only wanted the swimming pool and one other building it did not bother us about the others. I was going to pull them down any way

The swimming pool was not demolished because it was cracking it was pulled down because we were told to. Only mentioned about the construction because there building control passed the design.

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

And again I point out that a different investigation into a different complaint may easily get a different result.

Can you explaine why you believe there was a different investigation? It was the same buildings the council come up with the excuse that they took outside legal advice.

Each building under class E PD would be judged on its own purpose that it was built for.
Please remeber the notice was not all or nothing, each of those building would of been judged on its own purpose that they were built for. The notice could of been served on 1, 2 3 building etc. The fact it was served on all 7 must prove that the planners in 2007 were useless. (may be they should of gone to spec savers)

This is fact Any one can build an indoor or out door swimming pool in there garden as long as its in the curtilage of the property. This one wasn't and that is why they served a demolishen notice on that building.
In 2007 it wasn't in curtilage so why did the planning department not serve a notice then
The is no point getting a certificate of lawfullness if the swimming pool is in the curtilage because the building is legal under PD rights.
The council now admit that the planning officers did not consider curtilage. Why? They also admit that they did not consider any of the buildings being incidental to the dwelling house. Un believable
Its equivelent to a detective not noticing that there is a built in a dead body and putting the death down to nataural causes.

Ok so my question is what did the enforcement / planning offices actually do in 2007



I had an investigation by the Vat office in 2003. (13 years before I had my first one and then 3 years to the next) In 2006 they investigated again because 2 smart Vat officers did not like the way my industry was working out there Vat. They were investigating all of this type of business. My way was now deemed wrong and my liabilty was in the region of £75,000 plus charges. When I pointed out that in 2003 the Vat officers were fine with the way I operated they told me to complain. The result was I never had to pay because the advice given 3 years earlier had been wrong. Many other business went into liquidation.

If you can prove that civil servants do not carry out there duty corrctly surely they have to be accountable.

Edited by hunton69 on Saturday 15th February 12:23

Edited by hunton69 on Saturday 15th February 12:25