Can I sue my council
Discussion
We bought a property in 2010 that included 7 out buildings that were built by the previous owner in 2007 under permitted development.
Total Area 708 sq meters foot print of house is 75 sq meters.
The council opened 2 enforcment in 2007 following complaints from locals both cases were closed with out any action being taken.
In 2009 the previouse owner is repossed by the bank and a third enforcment case is opened.
We buy in 2010 and early in 2011 the council services us an order to demolish all 7 buildings.
We appeal but loose.
My question is this
The council admit that there officers in 2007 never appeared to asses the criteria of wether the buildings were within the curtilage or if they were incidental to the dwelling house.
They say that the officer consideredi heights and sitings.
The swimming pool height is 4 meters and 15 cm to damp (max permissible 4 meters.)
We can contest sitings as 3 buildings are within 2 meters of the previous owners curtilage bounday line.
A garage block that was built in 2006 is infront of the principle elevation of the main house and therefor is now legal as they took no action.(not permissible under PD My new build was refused on those grounds as the new build was behind the garage block.
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"
Finally does anyone know of any good solicitors who specialise in this field.
Total Area 708 sq meters foot print of house is 75 sq meters.
The council opened 2 enforcment in 2007 following complaints from locals both cases were closed with out any action being taken.
In 2009 the previouse owner is repossed by the bank and a third enforcment case is opened.
We buy in 2010 and early in 2011 the council services us an order to demolish all 7 buildings.
We appeal but loose.
My question is this
The council admit that there officers in 2007 never appeared to asses the criteria of wether the buildings were within the curtilage or if they were incidental to the dwelling house.
They say that the officer consideredi heights and sitings.
The swimming pool height is 4 meters and 15 cm to damp (max permissible 4 meters.)
We can contest sitings as 3 buildings are within 2 meters of the previous owners curtilage bounday line.
A garage block that was built in 2006 is infront of the principle elevation of the main house and therefor is now legal as they took no action.(not permissible under PD My new build was refused on those grounds as the new build was behind the garage block.
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"
Finally does anyone know of any good solicitors who specialise in this field.
hunton69 said:
We bought a property in 2010 that included 7 out buildings that were built by the previous owner in 2007 under permitted development.
Total Area 708 sq meters foot print of house is 75 sq meters.
The council opened 2 enforcment in 2007 following complaints from locals both cases were closed with out any action being taken.
In 2009 the previouse owner is repossed by the bank and a third enforcment case is opened.
We buy in 2010 and early in 2011 the council services us an order to demolish all 7 buildings.
We appeal but loose.
My question is this
The council admit that there officers in 2007 never appeared to asses the criteria of wether the buildings were within the curtilage or if they were incidental to the dwelling house.
They say that the officer consideredi heights and sitings.
The swimming pool height is 4 meters and 15 cm to damp (max permissible 4 meters.)
We can contest sitings as 3 buildings are within 2 meters of the previous owners curtilage bounday line.
A garage block that was built in 2006 is infront of the principle elevation of the main house and therefor is now legal as they took no action.(not permissible under PD My new build was refused on those grounds as the new build was behind the garage block.
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"
Finally does anyone know of any good solicitors who specialise in this field.
For swimming pool height, can't you just throw .5 meters of earth around the bottom? Hey, presto, it's now only 3.5 m high.Total Area 708 sq meters foot print of house is 75 sq meters.
The council opened 2 enforcment in 2007 following complaints from locals both cases were closed with out any action being taken.
In 2009 the previouse owner is repossed by the bank and a third enforcment case is opened.
We buy in 2010 and early in 2011 the council services us an order to demolish all 7 buildings.
We appeal but loose.
My question is this
The council admit that there officers in 2007 never appeared to asses the criteria of wether the buildings were within the curtilage or if they were incidental to the dwelling house.
They say that the officer consideredi heights and sitings.
The swimming pool height is 4 meters and 15 cm to damp (max permissible 4 meters.)
We can contest sitings as 3 buildings are within 2 meters of the previous owners curtilage bounday line.
A garage block that was built in 2006 is infront of the principle elevation of the main house and therefor is now legal as they took no action.(not permissible under PD My new build was refused on those grounds as the new build was behind the garage block.
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"
Finally does anyone know of any good solicitors who specialise in this field.
Typical council
Option 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SO-RPx9IRc
Option 2: http://777group.com/case-studies/
This firm have some awesome equipment
Option 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SO-RPx9IRc
Option 2: http://777group.com/case-studies/
This firm have some awesome equipment
Snowboy said:
I would have though this would have been picked up in the survey when you bought the house.
If not the actual problem, the fact that things were still outstanding.
The 7 out buildings were 3 detached garages they would be legal under PD if there with in the curtilage. (The council only challenged the curtilage after we purchased the property)If not the actual problem, the fact that things were still outstanding.
2 Bungelow style buildings
1 swimming pool
1 rectangular building 9 x 6 meters that was called the dog kennel
We never wanted all the buildings and that is why we were not worried about the buildings.(started to demolish 1 bungelow as soon as we purchased.) Never thought they would want them all down and why would we when they never challenged the previous owner.
Class E permitted development states that a a swimming pool is legal and any other building incidental to the dwelling house therefor garages are if you have something to store in them. We have 6 cars.
A gym and games room is incidental
This is along as there all in the curtilage and less than 50% of curtilage as we have 4 acres and the curtilage was approx 2 acres (after the council challenged curtilage now approx 1 acre) we could see no problem.
I cannot see from the facts you describe (although I don't find the description very clear) that you would have any viable cause of action against the local authority. It is not apparent that it has breached any enforceable duty owed to you, and if you are complaining about events in 2007 you may face limitation problems in any event.
The exercise or non exercise of a public power or performance or non performance of a public duty does not give rise to a claim for damages save in certain limited factual situations, this case not appearing to be one of those.
The exercise or non exercise of a public power or performance or non performance of a public duty does not give rise to a claim for damages save in certain limited factual situations, this case not appearing to be one of those.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 11th February 21:02
A few thoughts ( I defeated a London Borough on a major enforcement case)
If the development has been there four years, then it is lawful; period. Evidence it ; historic aerial photos are a good option!
Focus on how what is built is consistent with PD, would get planning consent etc.
Were you made aware of the planning history from the vendor when you bought the property? If not, then that would seem a material omission and explore avenues for a claim against the vendor/their or your solicitors.
If any planning consents were granted for the scheme get them looked at by a Barrister ( not as pricey as you might think ), they may legitimise more than you imagine plus Councils aren't great at getting documents legally correct, to their detriment.
Similarly, any Enforcement Notice issued by a Council; get it reviewed by a lawyer/barrister; it may be legally invalid.
Use the Local Government Ombudsman; whilst they try hard to avoid getting involved in what they think should be Enforcement Appeals to the Planning Inspectorate, you might be able to shape a case that the Council are incompetent and are bringing the action against you on other than planning grounds etc.
Get a good planning consultant ( RTPI ), someone with Development Control experience
Look at the performance stats of the council on enforcement; some are incompetent and this may help you.
Think of the implications of an Enforcement Notice e.g. on saleability etc.
Attack is the best form of defence; are the council competent, have they acted dishonestly etc don't assume your Council will act with integrity or honesty!!!
Don't say more than you need to; don't send them information; think about monitoring any visits they make and manage Council staff on your site. Don't take their 'advice' on face value.
If the development has been there four years, then it is lawful; period. Evidence it ; historic aerial photos are a good option!
Focus on how what is built is consistent with PD, would get planning consent etc.
Were you made aware of the planning history from the vendor when you bought the property? If not, then that would seem a material omission and explore avenues for a claim against the vendor/their or your solicitors.
If any planning consents were granted for the scheme get them looked at by a Barrister ( not as pricey as you might think ), they may legitimise more than you imagine plus Councils aren't great at getting documents legally correct, to their detriment.
Similarly, any Enforcement Notice issued by a Council; get it reviewed by a lawyer/barrister; it may be legally invalid.
Use the Local Government Ombudsman; whilst they try hard to avoid getting involved in what they think should be Enforcement Appeals to the Planning Inspectorate, you might be able to shape a case that the Council are incompetent and are bringing the action against you on other than planning grounds etc.
Get a good planning consultant ( RTPI ), someone with Development Control experience
Look at the performance stats of the council on enforcement; some are incompetent and this may help you.
Think of the implications of an Enforcement Notice e.g. on saleability etc.
Attack is the best form of defence; are the council competent, have they acted dishonestly etc don't assume your Council will act with integrity or honesty!!!
Don't say more than you need to; don't send them information; think about monitoring any visits they make and manage Council staff on your site. Don't take their 'advice' on face value.
Edited by Zed Ed on Tuesday 11th February 21:54
Zed Ed said:
If the development has been there four years, then it is lawful; period. Evidence it ; historic aerial photos are a good option!
That's what I thought and why my neighbour is laughing about his huge, no planning permission, extension as it's been up for the requisite number of years!
Thanks for the replies
My complaint is that despite 2 enforcment cases opened in 2007 when the previous owner owned the property the council closed the cases without taking an enforcment action. That must of meant that the planning department were satisfied that the buildings conformed to Permitted development conditions.
When the property went to market in 2009 the council opened up an other case due to potential buyers asking about the legallity of those buildings. We contacted the council at that time and they told us some of the buildings in there opinion were not legal. As I have said that did not bother us as we intended to knock half of them down.
After we purchased the property in 2010 they served us a notice to knock them all down. They served that notice within the 4 year limit.
My question is why did the council come to 2 different conclusions when the only thing that had changed was the owners of the property.
Were the planners in 2007 corrupt or incompetent.
My complaint is that despite 2 enforcment cases opened in 2007 when the previous owner owned the property the council closed the cases without taking an enforcment action. That must of meant that the planning department were satisfied that the buildings conformed to Permitted development conditions.
When the property went to market in 2009 the council opened up an other case due to potential buyers asking about the legallity of those buildings. We contacted the council at that time and they told us some of the buildings in there opinion were not legal. As I have said that did not bother us as we intended to knock half of them down.
After we purchased the property in 2010 they served us a notice to knock them all down. They served that notice within the 4 year limit.
My question is why did the council come to 2 different conclusions when the only thing that had changed was the owners of the property.
Were the planners in 2007 corrupt or incompetent.
On what basis do you suggest that the planners owed you any enforceable duty in 2007, when you did not own the land? .
The general duties owed by a public authority to the public are not usually enforceable by individual claims for damages. There are exceptions to this principle, but none appear to be relevant here.
In addition, it appears that you knew that at least some of the buildings on the land had been built in breach of planning control before you bought the land. It does not sound like the planning authority said or did anything that would confer on you a legitimate expectation that enforcement action would not be taken.
The general duties owed by a public authority to the public are not usually enforceable by individual claims for damages. There are exceptions to this principle, but none appear to be relevant here.
In addition, it appears that you knew that at least some of the buildings on the land had been built in breach of planning control before you bought the land. It does not sound like the planning authority said or did anything that would confer on you a legitimate expectation that enforcement action would not be taken.
hunton69 said:
My question is why did the council come to 2 different conclusions when the only thing that had changed was the owners of the property.
The real question is did they actually reach a conclusion in 2007?If they officially concluded either that the buildings were legal or that they were not legal but that no further action was warranted then you may perhaps have a case against them now. In either situation there would have been a letter sent to the owners a copy of which should be on file but that sounds unlikely in this case as it would have answered the queries that came up from purchasers in 2009.
If they did not complete their investigation or reach an official conclusion then they are now continuing or reopening an ongoing case.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff