Can I sue my council

[Steffan]

hunton69 said:

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 there is nothing the council can do about.
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.


As I have said we never believed the pool to be part of

I wish you well with your case. I will be interested to hear the result. From you various descriptions of the events I personally cannot see cause for an action. But you may be proved right.

[hunton69]

Steffan said:

I wish you well with your case. I will be interested to hear the result. From you various descriptions of the events I personally cannot see cause for an action. But you may be proved right.

Thank you for your comments. It has made me think outside the box.

I am taking advice from a soilicitor who specialise in this field (not easy to find)

[Steffan]

hunton69 said:

Steffan said:

I wish you well with your case. I will be interested to hear the result. From you various descriptions of the events I personally cannot see cause for an action. But you may be proved right.

Thank you for your comments. It has made me think outside the box.

I am taking advice from a soilicitor who specialise in this field (not easy to find)

Indeed. Hopefully your Solicitor will not seek to ramp costs but rather assess your position reasonably. I would be interested to hear what they regard as actionable if they do in fact suggest there is a case. I wish you good luck.

[hunton69]

Steffan said:

Indeed. Hopefully your Solicitor will not seek to ramp costs but rather assess your position reasonably. I would be interested to hear what they regard as actionable if they do in fact suggest there is a case. I wish you good luck.

I like there attitude they are requesting all documents from council then if they think there is a possible case take advice from Council who specialize in this. Only then if they feel there is a good case take it further.

Another point that I did not mention as it does not involve me was the bank that repossed the property is looking at Suing the previous owners solicitors as they only lent the money to him on the basis the buildings were legal.

We estimate the build costs to be between 400 and 500 thousand pounds. It does make you think why anyone would spend that kind of money on this build if there was a possibity that they would have to come down.
The previous owner informed me that there were documents in the house when he left to support this. Unfortunatly while the property was empty they disappeared.
Solicitor has told me he will get copies if he requests them.

[Steffan]

hunton69 said:

Steffan said:

Indeed. Hopefully your Solicitor will not seek to ramp costs but rather assess your position reasonably. I would be interested to hear what they regard as actionable if they do in fact suggest there is a case. I wish you good luck.

I like there attitude they are requesting all documents from council then if they think there is a possible case take advice from Council who specialize in this. Only then if they feel there is a good case take it further.

Another point that I did not mention as it does not involve me was the bank that repossed the property is looking at Suing the previous owners solicitors as they only lent the money to him on the basis the buildings were legal.

We estimate the build costs to be between 400 and 500 thousand pounds. It does make you think why anyone would spend that kind of money on this build if there was a possibity that they would have to come down.
The previous owner informed me that there were documents in the house when he left to support this. Unfortunatly while the property was empty they disappeared.
Solicitor has told me he will get copies if he requests them.

Many year of experience (!??) in Amalgamations and Liquidations in Accountancy taught me that some individuals lose the plot when money is easy and then suddenly not. The current Irish Bank cases demonstrate the effect. People do inexplicable things that defy reason. I do wish you well with your case: your lawyer should be able to establish the facts and then assess the possibilities.

[TooMany2cvs]

hunton69 said:

Can you explaine why you believe there was a different investigation? It was the same buildings

Yes, it was. But they were investigating a DIFFERENT COMPLAINT. They do not investigate anything OUTSIDE that immediate complaint.

hunton69 said:

Another point that I did not mention as it does not involve me was the bank that repossed the property is looking at Suing the previous owners solicitors as they only lent the money to him on the basis the buildings were legal.

It VERY MUCH involves you, because the ONLY grounds that the previous lender would have to sue would be to reclaim money they lost as a direct result. So they must have sold the property at a reduced value directly due to the planning issues. And who was it paid that reduced value...? Yep, you. In other words, the only way in which they have a case is if you bought at a value commensurate with the pre-existing issues. The exact same issues which you're now claiming weren't pre-existing, and which came as a total surprise to you...

[hunton69]

"Yes, it was. But they were investigating a DIFFERENT COMPLAINT. They do not investigate anything OUTSIDE that immediate complaint"


So what complaint were they investigating in 2007?

[hunton69]

"Yes, it was. But they were investigating a DIFFERENT COMPLAINT. They do not investigate anything OUTSIDE that immediate complaint."

That has to be rubbish because the 2009 enforcement case was not started by a complaint. Have you read all my posts.

[TooMany2cvs]

hunton69 said:

"Yes, it was. But they were investigating a DIFFERENT COMPLAINT. They do not investigate anything OUTSIDE that immediate complaint"

So what complaint were they investigating in 2007?

Oh, ffs. It's like pulling teeth.

Look, it's really simple. FOUR DIFFERENT complaints were made to the council. Two in 2007, two in 2009. Both of the 2007 and one of the 2009 complaints were closed with No Further Action. The fourth complaint, one of the 2009 ones, was upheld.

You will need to get the paperwork from the council as to what each of the four DIFFERENT complaints was regarding, because that isn't on the council planning website. But you really should already have the paperwork for the upheld one - the only relevant one - since YOU APPEALED IT. The other three are irrelevant. They might as well say "We're complaining that we don't like the colour the door's painted" for all it matters. The ONLY thing that matters is that one complaint was upheld before you bought the place, then you appealed it - and the original decision was upheld, too.

This really does not involve terribly difficult concepts.

Since you clearly bought the place not only in full knowledge of the previously upheld complaint, but - apparently - at a price that reflected it, I do not see what you hope to gain with legal action.

Going back to the much earlier question about why the sale isn't shown on the Land Registry, the fact it was a repo would probably be the answer.

hunton69 said:

That has to be rubbish because the 2009 enforcement case was not started by a complaint. Have you read all my posts.

Honestly? I don't think I'd trust you telling me what time of day it is, so I'll go with the fact the council have it down on their planning website as a complaint. Reference 09/0533/COMP. I wonder what "COMP" in the reference could mean? Do you think "Type: Complaint" is a clue?

Anyway, frankly, I can't be arsed any more. Ah'm oot.

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Saturday 15th February 18:32

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

Honestly? I don't think I'd trust you telling me what time of day it is, so I'll go with the fact the council have it down on their planning website as a complaint. Reference 09/0533/COMP. I wonder what "COMP" in the reference could mean? Do you think "Type: Complaint" is a clue?

Anyway, frankly, I can't be arsed any more. Ah'm oot.

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Saturday 15th February 18:32

Forget what the web site tells you its not correct.

I have been told by the council that it WAS NOT A COMPLAINT

Also if you read my posts you would realise that my sister in law lives opposite, others drink in the pub we use. We know exactly what they were complaing about is 2007. There was up roar because of the size of the buildings, May be the was another reason why the enforcement team may of down played there complaints.
It does matter that the council investigate all complaintsd properly. They have a document 450 pages long about the protocal.

Regarding the price again if you read my posts it went for the price that they were offering in 2009 when I was first interested. The reason why it went out of reach for me then was because buyers were prepared to pay more but remember banks stopped lending in 2010

Agreed about the can't be bothered any more. You must be a politician because you ignore most of my questions.

[surveyor]

Maybe it's just me, but I would expect a complaint regarding a development to result in a proper investigation as to it's legality in it's entirety. I would not expect a planning officer to wander around with his eyes closed other than the specific element of the complaint. In fact,knowing some planners I would be amazed if they did not do this.

I can see why the OP is feeling aggrieved. If the development has been investigated twice with no action taken, you would normally think that there is no action to take. For a third investigation to see a different result would be unexpected.

Possibly the OP's main regret is not pushing for a Lawful Development Certificate after investigation No 2, but that is water under the bridge.

[Steffan]

surveyor said:

Maybe it's just me, but I would expect a complaint regarding a development to result in a proper investigation as to it's legality in it's entirety. I would not expect a planning officer to wander around with his eyes closed other than the specific element of the complaint. In fact,knowing some planners I would be amazed if they did not do this.

I can see why the OP is feeling aggrieved. If the development has been investigated twice with no action taken, you would normally think that there is no action to take. For a third investigation to see a different result would be unexpected.

Possibly the OP's main regret is not pushing for a Lawful Development Certificate after investigation No 2, but that is water under the bridge.

I do agree there are anomalies but IMO not actionable in all the circumstances.

[Steve H]

surveyor said:

Maybe it's just me, but I would expect a complaint regarding a development to result in a proper investigation as to it's legality in it's entirety. I would not expect a planning officer to wander around with his eyes closed other than the specific element of the complaint. In fact,knowing some planners I would be amazed if they did not do this.

I'm sure it varies between different boroughs or officers but some will just look at the specific complaint, it may be laziness, actual work pressures or just not looking for any more fights or work than they have to do but it does happen.

surveyor said:

I can see why the OP is feeling aggrieved. If the development has been investigated twice with no action taken, you would normally think that there is no action to take. For a third investigation to see a different result would be unexpected.

Possibly the OP's main regret is not pushing for a Lawful Development Certificate after investigation No 2, but that is water under the bridge.

Apologies if I've missed this but did the council ever actually properly confirm that they would be taking no further action or did they just not take any action? If it's the latter then he shouldn't have put any reliance on it.

[surveyor]

Steve H said:

Possibly the OP's main regret is not pushing for a Lawful Development Certificate after investigation No 2, but that is water under the bridge.

Apologies if I've missed this but did the council ever actually properly confirm that they would be taking no further action or did they just not take any action? If it's the latter then he shouldn't have put any reliance on it.

I think the latter. I expect he now knows he should not have put any reliance on it - but if you are aware that it's been investigated twice with no action then it paints an overall picture. It's therefore surprising that there is a different result on the third investigation.

If there was a breach it should have been dealt with on the first occasion IMO.

[Steve H]

I agree but you are dealing with bureaucrats, unless they have confirmed a view in writing they will not be held to anything later on; painting a picture is for situations where you can rely on common sense - not relevant when dealing with council departments.

Given that the OP knew there had been issues in the past that had not been resolved he should have known there was a risk and for sure shouldn't be thinking he can sue over it.

[hunton69]

As I have said the land in question is green belt. This council has a reputation for not allowing planning abuse on green belt.
As I have said we had 6 officers visit the site in the first 3 months that we owned it.

The council has a policy of fair play to all residents.

It been good to read other peoples opinions.

[10 Pence Short]

Forgive me if you've answered already OP, but what did your conveyancing solicitor's report say on the matter before you committed to the purchase?

[Steve H]

As a general comment I'm very surprised that (if I'm understanding correctly) there have been so many cases here that have resulted in no actual further action but don't appear to have any documentation to the effect that the investigation was concluded.

My understanding is that once an investigation has started into something built under PD rights (or without any permission) they can do one of three things -

1 Decide there is no breach in the PD regulations.
2 Decide there is a breach in PD but that it does not justify enforcement. They will generally try to pressure the owner into making a retro planning application but if he refuses they make a report to the planning committee recommending no further action. AFAIK all investigations that conclude that there is a breach of regulations have to end up in front of the committee with a recommendation and cannot be dealt with under delegated powers.
3 Decide there is a breach in PD that does justify enforcement. As with 2, they will usually try to get an application but otherwise will go to committee recommending enforcement.


All of these options should result in a conclusion that would then bind them and avoid future investigations or problems. I'm surprised the previous owners let the council get away with apparently taking a 4th option of just leaving these cases open.

[10 Pence Short]

There seem to be two intertwined issues;

1) The OP doesn't agree with the local authority's decision(s) and

2) The OP wants recompense in the event that his property no longer has the buildings that were present when he bought it.

What happens with 1 should determine whether 2 becomes moot or not.

The OP's ultimate route would be a judicial review of the decision, though I don't know whether he would be expected to exhaust the planning appeals process first and JR their decision, or could go straight to JR from the LA? Either way, he would have a 3 month time limit from being notified of their decision to issuing proceedings and the hurdle he'd have to cross in reversing their decision would be significant.

If the issue becomes one of loss of value following enforcement, then it'll be down to the basis on which he bought the property. If he bought it with the expectation that the buildings were legitimate and would not have to be demolished, I suppose he may have an action available against whoever's advice upon which he relied.

What I think is very unlikely, is that the council could take a lawful decision (however messily they come to it) and they will somehow become responsible for the loss in value to the property. That would be nonsense, in my opinion.

[hunton69]

[quote=10 Pence Short]There seem to be two intertwined issues;

1) The OP doesn't agree with the local authority's decision(s) and

2) The OP wants recompense in the event that his property no longer has the buildings that were present when he bought it.

What happens with 1 should determine whether 2 becomes moot or not.

We now agree with the local authority's decision as the evidence against some of the buildings that we now have (we did not have that evidence when we purchased the property) proves that those buildings could never be classed as permitted development.

The previous owner determined where the curtilage was the council never considered curtilage untill after I bought the property and then they decided in March 2011 was a much smaller area none of the buildings were now not in the curtilage.( what makes it worse is he built 3 of the buildings in the wrong place so even if the council had agreed his curtilage area 3 of them were still illegal)
The council have also admiited that they did not consider if the buildings were incidental to the dwelling house.
No search was going to tell us that the council's planning department was so incompetent that during 2 enforcement cases they did not consider those 2 principles.