Can I sue my council

[hunton69]

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.

[hunton69]

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)
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.

[hunton69]

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.

[hunton69]

Steve H said:

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.

There were 2 enforcement case opened and then closed in 2007. I have to presume that by closing the cases then they were satisfied that the buildings were built under PD criteria.
We have a letter from a local resident who complained and the office at the time told her that the owner new planning loop holes.
We also have it on record from the enforcement officer who was dealing with the case in 2009/2010 (The previous enforcement officer retired) He writes it appears that the officer at the time did not consider curtilage or wether the buildings were incidental to the dwelling house.
In a nut shell why not as there isn't much else he had to consider.
The scale of the site was huge everyone and anyone who has visited the site since we owned it is shocked by the magnitude of the development.

[hunton69]

Breadvan72 said:

It sounds to me that you knew that you were taking a risk when you bought the property, but went ahead anyway. Forgive me if I am reading too much into what you say. It is sometimes possible to obtain indemnities from a seller as to matters such as compliance with planning controls, or to insure against risks associated with planning.

If you do have a beef, it appears to me that it is not with the planning authority but potentially with the solicitors who handled the purchase for you. A claim would require proof that the solicitors failed to act as competent conveyancers would have done in making enquiries and advising you on risks.

Your correct I knew what I was buying and I knew that the buildings did not have a certificate of lawfulness There were 7 buildings we only wanted to keep 2 buildings.
We also knew that the council had two enforcement cases opened and closed in 2007 we expected them to investigate the legality of those buildings properly the fact is they closed those cases without any action being taken.
We also had a conversation with senior planners from the council prior to buying in 2009 and they informed us that 2 of the buildings in there view ok. The swimming pool and dog kennel.
They then told us in 2011 they were all illegal.
My question is why did the council decision differ on so many occasions.
Any one can build under permitted development as long as the building fit the criteria.
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.

Edited by hunton69 on Wednesday 12th February 09:51

[hunton69]

Breadvan72 said:

You question appears to me to be academic. On the facts that you state, the answer to the question "Can I sue the Council?" is no.
If you went into the deal with your eyes, you may not have a beef against the solicitors either.

A claim does not arise just because someone has done something wrong or omitted to do something right. You have to show that the person had a duty not to do wrong to you and that what they did or failed to do has caused loss to you.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 12th February 10:05

Thank you for your replies

My thinking is that the planning department did do something wrong. They failed in there duty to carry out an investigation as to the legallity of these buildings. Not once but twice.
What was the point of neighbours complaining to the council about these buildings if the planning department was not going to investigate properly. Had the previous owner not been repossed there would not of been a third enforcement case opened and after 4 years these buildings would of become legal for the purpose they were built for.
I agree just because someone does not do there job correctly the council can not be held accountable however my understanding is that to close a case senior planners have to be involved.

During the third investigation we had 3 visits from 6 officers that is how serious they then took it.

They could of closed the third case while the bank owned the property and then there would not have been an issue as to what I was buying.

[hunton69]

Breadvan72 said:

PS: Trying to sue on the basis of might have beens (would haves, should haves*, etc) can be difficult. Add to this the fact that your complaint is, in effect, a complaint that the Council should not have enforced the law, and the claim will look very unattractive to a Judge.

I think you might mis understand me
What I am saying is the council should of enforced the law in 2007 with the previous owner.
We realised during our appeal that our appeal was going to fail because most of the buildings were not built with in the criteria of PD.

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.

Our loss is had the council done the simpliest of checks on these building I would not of had to demolish them. Oh and they put me in court for not knocking them down quick enough and not restoring the land to the original level. Which is impossible as I never lived there prior to the breach and the land had not been surveyed.

I told them it was impossible to restore the land to the original level but for some reason the summons then said restore the land to the original condition.
The court didn't give a scooby do that the summons never matched the enforcement order.

* It's "would/should have", not "would/should of".

[hunton69]

Art0ir said:

Absolutely nothing of value to add, but that looks like an epic pad.

Thanks. It is a great piece of land.

We are now re building the swimming pool, Gym and games room using as much material as possible from the old buildings. The new build is just over 2 meters away from the old pool building.

We do have a certificate of lawfullness for this build. Interesting the council refused on the grounds it was to big (Less than half the size of the other 7 buildings) but we one on appeal

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

It's not quite that simple, is it?

Going by the planning documentation on the council's website, the 2011 decision was your appeal against the 2009 enforcement notice - and refers to previous enforcement action taken against the pool building. B'sides, it's all academic, isn't it? In Nov '12, you were granted the certificate of lawful development for the pool building. I presume that none of the seven or eight previous enforcement notices in the years before you bought the place were related to the swimming pool building?

BTW, how come the Land Registry think the most recent sale for the property was 2002?

(And in case you're wondering how I've found this out, d'you see the co-ordinates on the aerial shot you posted...?)

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 12th February 15:01

I cannot answer for the Land registry.

I have no problem if you have established the location. I am however confused over your comment regarding the 7 or 8 enforcement notices. I thought there were only 4


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

I am very grateful of all the comments regarding this as I do not wish to purse a dead duck.

I am a business owner who has to make good when we do wrong.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

A little more consistency would help your credibility.

Sorry but confused by that comment

[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.

[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

[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

[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.