Can I sue my council
Discussion
10 Pence Short said:
Not unless the council were not entitled to make that decision.
You seem massively keen to talk about the council but not at all about the report your solicitors compiled and the information you actually relied upon when purchasing the property. Why is that?
As I have said many times it does not really matter what the report said. In my complaint to the council about the two cases in 2007 the reply is with have 4 years to serve an enforcement notice.You seem massively keen to talk about the council but not at all about the report your solicitors compiled and the information you actually relied upon when purchasing the property. Why is that?
That means that any one who buys a property with permitted development with out a certificate of lawfulness that is less than 4 years old could be served a notice to demolish such buildings.
A solicitors report would not help as it would only reveal that the previous owner built under PD which in its self is ok
What makes my case worse is they investigated twice prior.
Please consider the following:
1: The property had not been subject to an enforement case regarding these 7 out buildings
I purchase the property in 2010 searches reveal that the 7 out buildings were built in 2007 without planning permission but built using permitted development planning.
The council then open a case following complaints in early 2011 and then they serve an enforcement notice on all the buildings telling me to demolish them.
2: The are no pending enforcement case currently open regarding these 7 buildings.
After I purchase the property in 2010 the council opens another case and the result is they serve a notice to demolish them.
3: The property did have an enforcement case lodged agains the property in 2007 and that case was closed. I purchase the property and the searches reveal that there had been 2 enforcement cases in 2007 and there was currently another one in 2009 that is still open. I contact the council and the senior planning officer's team leader tells me that it does not involve all of them. I purchase the property in 2010. The senior planning officer writes 4 times out lining that the investigation is about 5 of the 7 buildings.
They then conclude the case and serve me a notice to demolish them all.
Would I have a valid complaint about any of these options?
1: The property had not been subject to an enforement case regarding these 7 out buildings
I purchase the property in 2010 searches reveal that the 7 out buildings were built in 2007 without planning permission but built using permitted development planning.
The council then open a case following complaints in early 2011 and then they serve an enforcement notice on all the buildings telling me to demolish them.
2: The are no pending enforcement case currently open regarding these 7 buildings.
After I purchase the property in 2010 the council opens another case and the result is they serve a notice to demolish them.
3: The property did have an enforcement case lodged agains the property in 2007 and that case was closed. I purchase the property and the searches reveal that there had been 2 enforcement cases in 2007 and there was currently another one in 2009 that is still open. I contact the council and the senior planning officer's team leader tells me that it does not involve all of them. I purchase the property in 2010. The senior planning officer writes 4 times out lining that the investigation is about 5 of the 7 buildings.
They then conclude the case and serve me a notice to demolish them all.
Would I have a valid complaint about any of these options?
10 Pence Short said:
On whose advice regarding the buildings did you rely before committing to the purchase?
The advice was that there was an enforcemnt case against un lawfull out buildings and there had been 2 cases in 2007.I did not buy the property for all of those buildings I only wanted the pool and one other building.
I was told that a swimming pool is allowed to be built using permitted development planning. I therefore never believed the pool to be in jeapody.
See how simply it was for the enforcement officers in 2007 to establish if the pool complied.
Class E Permitted development
The provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of—
(a) any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose
incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, or the maintenance,
improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure; or
(b) a container used for domestic heating purposes for the storage of oil or liquid
petroleum gas.
Development not permitted
E.1 Development is not permitted by Class E if—
(a) the total area of ground covered by buildings, enclosures and containers within the
curtilage (other than the original dwellinghouse) would exceed 50% of the total
area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse);
(b) any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land
forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse;
(c) the building would have more than one storey;
(d) the height of the building, enclosure or container would exceed—
(i) 4 metres in the case of a building with a dual-pitched roof,
(ii) 2.5 metres in the case of a building, enclosure or container within 2 metres of
the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, or
(iii) 3 metres in any other case;
(e) the height of the eaves of the building would exceed 2.5 metres;
(f) the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated within the curtilage of
a listed building;
(g) it would include the construction or provision of a veranda, balcony or raised
platform;
(h) it relates to a dwelling or a microwave antenna; or
(i) the capacity of the container would exceed 3,500 litres.
E.2 In the case of any land within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse which is within—
(a) a World Heritage Site,
Having read that why did we worry regarding the pool. Yes the other buildings were more complicated to determine if they complied.
The only thing they had to consider was curtilage and they admit they didn't. Why
The above post is from the Town and Country planning act.
Many on here have said what buildings did the 2007 enforcement case investigate.
It does not matter because
If a planning officer comes to investigate a complaint.
He has to ask the following
Do you have planning permission for that building if the answer is yes then the owner will provide a copy of the planning consent.
If the answer is no then that building will have to be removed.
If the owner say it is built using class E permitted development planning then the officer has to consider The town and country planning act and what does that say The provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of—
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2362/pdfs/...
And the council's reply to me is
The officers at the time did not consider curtilage not once but twice.
And the enforcement notice said in 2011 The buildings are unlawfull because they are not in the curtilage.
Many on here have said what buildings did the 2007 enforcement case investigate.
It does not matter because
If a planning officer comes to investigate a complaint.
He has to ask the following
Do you have planning permission for that building if the answer is yes then the owner will provide a copy of the planning consent.
If the answer is no then that building will have to be removed.
If the owner say it is built using class E permitted development planning then the officer has to consider The town and country planning act and what does that say The provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of—
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2362/pdfs/...
And the council's reply to me is
The officers at the time did not consider curtilage not once but twice.
And the enforcement notice said in 2011 The buildings are unlawfull because they are not in the curtilage.
Edited by hunton69 on Monday 17th February 16:57
bltamil1 said:
Told by who? That statement is correct, up to the limitations of Class E which you set out immediately below. Didn't you say in one of your earlier posts that the ridge line of the swimming pool was 4.15m above ground level?
Class E also relies on outbuildings being 'incidental' to the enjoyment of the dwelling it relates to, one of the measures of 'incidental' is scale.....
You cannot rely on conversations you have had in the local about who said what to who, as it simply isn't relevant to the facts at hand. Unless you have it in writing from the Council that particular buildings are considered lawful development, any other correspondence (particularly verbal) will almost certainly be of little use to you.
When you buy a property would you go around and measure all the buildings? We did notClass E also relies on outbuildings being 'incidental' to the enjoyment of the dwelling it relates to, one of the measures of 'incidental' is scale.....
You cannot rely on conversations you have had in the local about who said what to who, as it simply isn't relevant to the facts at hand. Unless you have it in writing from the Council that particular buildings are considered lawful development, any other correspondence (particularly verbal) will almost certainly be of little use to you.
We only noticed the height after we purchased.
The council in there investigation should of taken that into account during there investigation.
We have it in writing from them : it appears the planning officer did not consider the criteria of curtilage or whether the buildings were incidental to the dwelling house but only considered heights and sitings etc. That proves he did not.
We have a local resident who is now miffed why the council did not take action in 2007 when they complained. They are going to write to the council for a copy of there complaint and the councils reply.
bltamil1 said:
Where did you get that from? The Officer doesn't work from a script, and doesn't necessarily come out looking for breaches. They may choose only to investigate the complaint in front of them.
They investigated all of themI met with the previous owner last year he said the visits were so regular he used to make him coffee.
The building control officer (I know they don't get involved) told me all the dates he visited the property. He had about 20 visits.
Getting that info out of the planning department might prove tricker.
bltamil1 said:
Perhaps the individual officer took it as read that the buildings were within the curtilage of the dwelling? Maybe he should have looked into that further, but he didn't, and wasn't under any obligation to do so I'm afraid. .
Thanks for that info.Can I ask why he is not obliged to.
bltamil1 said:
Even if the Council has reversed it's decision in 2009, the OP purchased the property in 2010....
If you want to be certain that buildings are legal, you should either apply for planning permission or apply for a Certificate of Lawful Development for a structure that you consider already has planning permission by virtue of PD rights. These two methods would bind the Council to the decision (subject to any Judicial Review of course) and would remove the risk of any subsequent complaint or action.
I have never said in my posts that the buildings were or are legal. Far from it I know that some where never PD others would be if in curtilage. My basis is the failure or the planning department.If you want to be certain that buildings are legal, you should either apply for planning permission or apply for a Certificate of Lawful Development for a structure that you consider already has planning permission by virtue of PD rights. These two methods would bind the Council to the decision (subject to any Judicial Review of course) and would remove the risk of any subsequent complaint or action.
Below is the definition of maladmisistration and that is my basis for suing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maladministration
If some one makes a mistake then that would not be deemed as maladministration as mistakes happen.
A combination of mistakes and then it is a different matter.
If you read all my posts the planning department got every thing wrong in 2007.
bltamil1 said:
It's probably best likened to trying to prove a negative. For example, I could call up my local Council and complain about the house across the road with some vague complaint about it not having planning permission. The Council could send someone out to take a look, but they won't then go poring over every detail trying to find some breach of permission. They will require somewhere to start, if that makes sense.
In this case, the owner would probably have told them that the outbuildings all comply with Class E permitted development and listed a few reasons why. It seems a bit remiss of the Officer not to check the curtilage and height/size requirements, but we can only guess at their reasons (absent the paperwork). However, even if those reasons are exceptionally flimsy, and amount to no more than laziness, this doesn't translate into a civil claim from a third party some years later.
The above is, of course, purely conjecture and guesswork, but hopefully illustrates the point. You could possibly argue that the Council SHOULD have investigated more fully, but this does not mean they had any legal obligation to do so, much less any duty to you in particular.
The fact is that you bought the property in the full knowledge that at least some of it was illegal development, and I think you will struggle to get past that.
As I said before, I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, and it may be that your solicitor takes a more learned view, but in my experience of development and the planning system I cant see this going well for you.
If you read all my posts after I purchased the property in 2010 the day I got the keys they had a visit. 2 more within 3 months 6 officers in total and they wanted a fourth (I refused that one) so in my case they did pore over every detail. In this case, the owner would probably have told them that the outbuildings all comply with Class E permitted development and listed a few reasons why. It seems a bit remiss of the Officer not to check the curtilage and height/size requirements, but we can only guess at their reasons (absent the paperwork). However, even if those reasons are exceptionally flimsy, and amount to no more than laziness, this doesn't translate into a civil claim from a third party some years later.
The above is, of course, purely conjecture and guesswork, but hopefully illustrates the point. You could possibly argue that the Council SHOULD have investigated more fully, but this does not mean they had any legal obligation to do so, much less any duty to you in particular.
The fact is that you bought the property in the full knowledge that at least some of it was illegal development, and I think you will struggle to get past that.
As I said before, I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, and it may be that your solicitor takes a more learned view, but in my experience of development and the planning system I cant see this going well for you.
Enforcement – The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the Local Planning Authority to
safeguard the environment and the public by investigating alleged breaches of planning control in a
thorough, timely and efficient manner, taking enforcement action where it is considered to be
expedient and in the public interests. The planning enforcement service at Three Rivers District
Council is predominantly undertaken by the Projects & Compliance Team within the Development
Management section of the Community and Environmental Services Directorate
Copied from the Three Rivers web site.
Now check out the original picture of the plot.
Three Rivers has a policy that only allows a 40% increase for extensions within the green belt.
The 7 out buildings were 708 sq meters. If you check out the garage block nearest the house that was another 120 sq meters built as PD in 2006 (by the way part of it was illegal however the council did not act with in 4 years and is now lawfull)
The house has a footprint of 100 Sq Meters.
In there response to my appeal they went into great detail about these sizes.
I think this might of been in the public interest.
safeguard the environment and the public by investigating alleged breaches of planning control in a
thorough, timely and efficient manner, taking enforcement action where it is considered to be
expedient and in the public interests. The planning enforcement service at Three Rivers District
Council is predominantly undertaken by the Projects & Compliance Team within the Development
Management section of the Community and Environmental Services Directorate
Copied from the Three Rivers web site.
Now check out the original picture of the plot.
Three Rivers has a policy that only allows a 40% increase for extensions within the green belt.
The 7 out buildings were 708 sq meters. If you check out the garage block nearest the house that was another 120 sq meters built as PD in 2006 (by the way part of it was illegal however the council did not act with in 4 years and is now lawfull)
The house has a footprint of 100 Sq Meters.
In there response to my appeal they went into great detail about these sizes.
I think this might of been in the public interest.
Edited by hunton69 on Monday 17th February 20:02
10 Pence Short said:
I don't believe they have said sufficiently formally that the developments were permitted (as in issued certificates). Unless there are more recent authorities, see East Sussex Ex Parte Reprotech on the issue of estoppel/ legitimate expectation. Words of advice from planning officers are insufficient.
Words from an officer is only his opinion and a disclaimer will be at the bottom of every letter.However higher up the chain it goes then that is not always the case.
The planning department has a job to do they cannot always worm there way out.
The purpose of the disclaimer is obvious on site meeting they will give advice they cannot be bound by that advice untill the research the case.
Planning is not always black and white I think you will find in my case there was not much grey with some of the buildings.
I asumed that closing an enforcement case involved senior managers. I may be wrong
bltamil1 said:
I did say "Even if".....
You don't know that the Council "got every thing wrong in 2007". You don't have the correspondence, you don't know what the specific complaint was, and you don't know how the Council came to their decision to take no further action.
As I (and numerous others) have already reminded you, you purchased the property with the knowledge that it was subject to an enforcement notice requiring demolition. How do you hope to reconcile this with the court when arguing that you have suffered a loss as a direct result of the Council failing to act against someone else three years beforehand?
I'm sorry but you have the facts wrong. There was not an enforcement notice requiring me to demolish when I purchased the property.You don't know that the Council "got every thing wrong in 2007". You don't have the correspondence, you don't know what the specific complaint was, and you don't know how the Council came to their decision to take no further action.
As I (and numerous others) have already reminded you, you purchased the property with the knowledge that it was subject to an enforcement notice requiring demolition. How do you hope to reconcile this with the court when arguing that you have suffered a loss as a direct result of the Council failing to act against someone else three years beforehand?
There was an enforcement case pending
The result of there Enforcement Case in April 2011 (7 months after I purchased) resulted in an enforcement notice being issued requiring me to demolish all of the buildings.
The reason was that the buildings were not in curtilage. And they admit that during there 2 investigation in 2007 it appears that the officers did not consider the criteria of curtilage.
Not sure how many times I have said this I do know what the complaints were One of them was from my now brother and sister in law. Not only have we spoke in depth but I have the draft letter they wrote.
10 Pence Short said:
In which case, on what basis do you think their decision to bring enforcement action is unlawful?
Put it another way, if you were a neighbour of yours wanting enforcement action, how do you think the council could defend themselves in a judicial review questioning their decision not to begin enforcement action?
I never said that the enforcement action in 2011 was un lawfullPut it another way, if you were a neighbour of yours wanting enforcement action, how do you think the council could defend themselves in a judicial review questioning their decision not to begin enforcement action?
I have said that they should of served an enforcment notice to the previous owner in 2007.
The evidence that they had then was no different to what they had in 2011
I'm saying that had they investigated properly they would of come to the same conclusion as they did in 2011
10 Pence Short said:
Forgive me for saying so, but you appear to be arguing that their failure to order the buildings' demolition in 2007 was wrong, and that their decision to do so in 2011 was right.
But you want to sue them for making a correct decision?
.
AgreedBut you want to sue them for making a correct decision?
.
I want to sue them for there failure in 2007.
So why was there a different result 4 years later?
They had all the evidence in 2007
The question I asked was can I sue the council the answers here appear to me that I can't
Edited by hunton69 on Monday 17th February 21:10
Steve H said:
OP, you're really not helping!
The answer to those questions are no, and yes but not by letter.
That's what happened here, they keep a public record of applications, appeals and enforcements, all publicly accessible online, this is copied/pasted from the decision made on Jan 4th 2007 -
Status: Case Closed
Type: Complaint
Decision: No Further Action
Decision Reason: Justification from Officer
Close Reason: Case Closed
Parish: Abbots Langley Parish Council
Ward: Bedmond And Primrose Hill
Case Officer: Mr Richard Stevens
Nature of Complaint: Unauthorised works
We would need to know that this case did concern all the buildings in question, but if it did then how can they later reverse that decision?
I am trying to look at both sidesThe answer to those questions are no, and yes but not by letter.
That's what happened here, they keep a public record of applications, appeals and enforcements, all publicly accessible online, this is copied/pasted from the decision made on Jan 4th 2007 -
Status: Case Closed
Type: Complaint
Decision: No Further Action
Decision Reason: Justification from Officer
Close Reason: Case Closed
Parish: Abbots Langley Parish Council
Ward: Bedmond And Primrose Hill
Case Officer: Mr Richard Stevens
Nature of Complaint: Unauthorised works
We would need to know that this case did concern all the buildings in question, but if it did then how can they later reverse that decision?
What that says is no further action. I guuess that means on this case.
As they have reopened the case then they have the power to do that.
The next case has the same result No further action
Then in 2009 they open a third case which is immediatly closed but then re open the fourth
bltamil1 said:
Ok, I'll bite one more time, and that's it!
The 2009 complaint may have been different in nature or in magnitude (or both) which caused them to revisit the situation. On that occasion, they obviously came to the conclusion that further action was required, and hence started the enforcement action.
This does all seem very odd, and I must admit to a more than passing interest in how this all came about. However, it's not going to help the OP in any action he may bring which in my opinion will not be successful.
Apologies if I got some of the dates and facts wrong earlier, I'm struggling to see the basic facts on this one!
Best of luck in your case OP.
As I have said the size and magnitude did not change in 2007 they were all there.The 2009 complaint may have been different in nature or in magnitude (or both) which caused them to revisit the situation. On that occasion, they obviously came to the conclusion that further action was required, and hence started the enforcement action.
This does all seem very odd, and I must admit to a more than passing interest in how this all came about. However, it's not going to help the OP in any action he may bring which in my opinion will not be successful.
Apologies if I got some of the dates and facts wrong earlier, I'm struggling to see the basic facts on this one!
Best of luck in your case OP.
In our appeal the council submitted pictures of the building works as they progressed and there is a lot of photos.
They are not taken by building control but by planning.
Thanks for your comments. I will bash the lawers with your thoughts.
My maths is far better than my English so I won't be wasting money on a dead duck
![](http://thumbsnap.com/sc/ugjhLoLU.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="http://thumbsnap.com/KB4HUp0C" Target="_blank">[img]http://thumbsnap.com/sc/KB4HUp0C.jpg)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff