Can I sue my council

[TooMany2cvs]

Jon1967x said:

pork911 said:

Jon1967x said:

Ignoring the OP and in an attempt to salvage something from all this - I've bought and sold houses with a query about planning that couldn't be quickly or easily resolved. - both related to permitted development rights but no positive evidence from planning that they thought it was acceptable. In both cases insurance was taken out to cover the risk of there being a subsequent problem.

Should this not have been put in place or would the conditions for doing so not been met?

Insurance is usually obtained when either required by law or risk. I'm not sensing OP felt any even remote risk at the time. If he had and had looked into it, the difficulty of insuring may have pinged some concern over what, without being unkind, were massive assumptions.

Thats what I would have thought. The house I sold had a utility built on the side without planning as the facts seemed to suggest permitted development. When I came to sell the buyers solicitor advised that I needed to prove it didn't need planning, my solicitor said we'll offer insurance as nobody was particularly worried - I think it cost about £27 and a lot quicker than going to planning and asking. The exact same thing happened on a house I bought. If the OP used a solicitor when buying, I'm puzzled why such a conversation didn't take place, if it didn't why he's not suing his solicitor or if it did, then the OP must have decided to take the risk.

At the end of the day, it's far too late for indemnity insurance - since the enforcement battle was underway BEFORE he even bought the place. You can only buy indemnity against things starting up at a _later_ date. Nobody'll insure against something that's already started, for fairly obvious reasons.

[Jon1967x]

TooMany2cvs said:

Jon1967x said:

pork911 said:

Jon1967x said:

Ignoring the OP and in an attempt to salvage something from all this - I've bought and sold houses with a query about planning that couldn't be quickly or easily resolved. - both related to permitted development rights but no positive evidence from planning that they thought it was acceptable. In both cases insurance was taken out to cover the risk of there being a subsequent problem.

Should this not have been put in place or would the conditions for doing so not been met?

Insurance is usually obtained when either required by law or risk. I'm not sensing OP felt any even remote risk at the time. If he had and had looked into it, the difficulty of insuring may have pinged some concern over what, without being unkind, were massive assumptions.

Thats what I would have thought. The house I sold had a utility built on the side without planning as the facts seemed to suggest permitted development. When I came to sell the buyers solicitor advised that I needed to prove it didn't need planning, my solicitor said we'll offer insurance as nobody was particularly worried - I think it cost about £27 and a lot quicker than going to planning and asking. The exact same thing happened on a house I bought. If the OP used a solicitor when buying, I'm puzzled why such a conversation didn't take place, if it didn't why he's not suing his solicitor or if it did, then the OP must have decided to take the risk.

At the end of the day, it's far too late for indemnity insurance - since the enforcement battle was underway BEFORE he even bought the place. You can only buy indemnity against things starting up at a _later_ date. Nobody'll insure against something that's already started, for fairly obvious reasons.

I agree - which just points to the fact that he knew all this at the time. If he didn't then his solicitor was at fault.

[anonymous-user]

There is such a thing as after the event insurance (ATE),which is used to fund litigation, but it's expensive, and ATE insurers usually look for at least a 60/40 chance of success before funding a claim.