Can I sue my council

[hunton69]

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.

7
Not all but some yes were not permitted development.

The 3 garages (if there within the curtilage of the property) could be classed as incidental to the dwelling house if the owners of the house had something to put in them.
The 2 bungelows again have to be in curtilage but only 1 of then could be classsed as incidental to the dwelling house as it could be turned into a snooker room and gym. (some inspectors don't like the fact that the building looks residential others don't care} I have trawled through many appeals.
So to have 2 identical bungalows could NEVER be legal
The swimming pool is incidental to the dwelling house. The problem with this one is it's 30 cm to high to be PD.

The dog kennel could be classed as incidental to the dwelling house. You would have to justify the size to be a dog kennel This was 9 meters by 6 meters. |So if you had 1 dog it would fail.

Another problem was the bungalow next to the swimming pool, the swimming pool and dog kennel has to be built at least 2 meters away from the curtilage boundary. These were not 2 meters away.
We know have plans that prove this. This was only confirned to me in Aug 2013.
The council had those plans in 2007

So in 2007 the planning officers must of been blind.

[hunton69]

1 of the 2 bungalows

Does that look like a permitted development building.

Permitted development buildings must not be lived in. You can have a toilet and a sink to wash your hands. Must not have kithcens or beds in.

They can only house things such as games rooms, Snooker rooms, Gym,and Swimming pool

Edited by hunton69 on Friday 14th February 14:41

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

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. Ironically some of those that complained now don't want them demolished. Funny lot

My inlaws have lived in this area for 40 years.

[hunton69]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[hunton69]

Steve H said:

Any sensible investigation should have shown that the previous council interest in the buildings had not been formally concluded.

Are you saying that an enforcement case close is not concluded

[hunton69]

bltamil1 said:

What can be built under PD rights is established in the General Permitted Development Order. If the development meets the criteria within this, it is PD, if it doesn't' it is not PD.

What evidence do you have now that you didn't have then?

I'll try one more time as you seem to be studiously avoiding the question, what do you hope to gain from your legal action?

Consider it this way, if you are unable to explain your position to a group of people on an Internet forum who are only hearing your side of the story, how much success do you think you will have in a court where you will be expected to answer questions.....

Page 3 about half way down you will see my answer about legal action

Exactly my point if it meets the PD criteria. It didn't in 2007 so they should of served the previous owner a notice to demolish and I would of bought the property with out the 7 buildings.

[hunton69]

Steve H said:

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the early investigations did not result in any action but there was no written confirmation from the council that they had investigated the construction of certain buildings and that they would be taking no further action on the issue.

Had they made such a statement (and closed the case) then I can't see how they would have been able to come back to you in 2011 and reverse the decision.

Have you checked out there web site the 2 cases in 2007 state that they were closed.

Although the headings say unauthorised works I know that the residents complained about the buildings.
They were told that the buildings were PD and that the two bungalows could be lived in by family members only. If the owner rented them out then they would no long be permitted development and they could take action.
That is a lie as no PD buildings can be lived in by anyone.
The locals knew no different and believed them.

Not sure if the planning officer was hood winking them or confused regarding the following Under PD an owner can put a caravan in there grounds and it may be lived in by family only