House Destroyed by Builder - Criminal Damage?

[bad company]

Surely this was criminal damage though the police don’t seem to think so:-

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-...

[poo at Paul's]

Interesting take on it all in the comments.

[Colonel Cupcake]

I'm sure the house would not have been in that state before the builders started.

The builders should have been paid but it does not give them carte blanche to destroy the house to retrieve the materials used.

[durbster]

poo at Paul's said:

Interesting take on it all in the comments.

I noticed that. Is that a plausible story - that the only way they could get permission to build it from scratch how they want it, is to fake that it's been ruined as part of a dispute?

[Getragdogleg]

Scam.

All day long.

[irc]

durbster said:

poo at Paul's said:

Interesting take on it all in the comments.

I noticed that. Is that a plausible story - that the only way they could get permission to build it from scratch how they want it, is to fake that it's been ruined as part of a dispute?

As cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford. But the builder would surely need a heft wedge to get involved in a scheme with no benefit to him and which would trash any local reputation he had.

[CoolC]

irc said:

durbster said:

poo at Paul's said:

Interesting take on it all in the comments.

I noticed that. Is that a plausible story - that the only way they could get permission to build it from scratch how they want it, is to fake that it's been ruined as part of a dispute?

As cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford. But the builder would surely need a heft wedge to get involved in a scheme with no benefit to him and which would trash any local reputation he had.

It'll be the same builder doing the full re-build later???

[pquinn]

If you want a house trashed beyond repair so you're forced to demolish and rebuild you have to go a lot further than that.

I can quite believe it's a scam just not well executed.

[fizz47]

Unless it’s listed do you need permission to demolish a house ?

I would have thought if you want planning permission it’s all about the new plans regardless of the state of the existing house ?

Edited by fizz47 on Wednesday 9th June 12:34

[andrewh]

durbster said:

I noticed that. Is that a plausible story - that the only way they could get permission to build it from scratch how they want it, is to fake that it's been ruined as part of a dispute?

Yesterday’s train ride into liverpool and you can see plenty of detached property that looks like it’s been rebuilt from scratch with a different design altogether, very common in the affluent parts of the northwest.

[anonymous-user]

irc said:

As cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford. But the builder would surely need a heft wedge to get involved in a scheme with no benefit to him and which would trash any local reputation he had.

Could be a "builder", though? Maybe this was his first and only job.

[poo at Paul's]

To risk a criminal damage conviction over 3500 seems a bit risky.

[pquinn]

fizz47 said:

Unless it’s listed do you need permission to demolish a house ?

I would have thought if you want planning permission it’s all about the new plans regardless of the state of the existing house ?

Well some might think it would be a way of bouncing an approval into place.

The funny thing is as I understand it it wouldn't need permission (assuming full demolition, not listed, not a conservation area) but if it's become unsafe by deliberate action or by inaction of someone with an interest in it you need full permission to demolish if it can't be made temporarily safe.

So smashing your place up actually forces a planning permission requirement that wouldn't otherwise exist.

[The Surveyor]

Getragdogleg said:

Scam.

All day long.

Exactly, i'd love to hear the builders version

[AJL308]

I don't get this. If he's told the police I haven't authorised the destruction of the house then how can the police say that it's not a criminal matter? I mean it may have been pure negligence but they'd at least need to investigate given there is a money dispute and lots of damage which looks suspiciously deliberate, one would think.

[ninja-lewis]

Was work actually undone or just abandoned as is with all scaffolding, covers unused materials, etc removed from site?

[TorqueVR]

You'd have to push a builder a bloody long way for him to take this sort of action. What sort of homeowner would stay way on holiday in the UK if his house is in this state?

As The Surveyor said, I'd like to hear the builder's version of events too.

[bad company]

TorqueVR said:

You'd have to push a builder a bloody long way for him to take this sort of action. What sort of homeowner would stay way on holiday in the UK if his house is in this state?

As The Surveyor said, I'd like to hear the builder's version of events too.

Yep, there’s always 2 sides to a story.

[CubanPete]

Looks more like he has abandoned the works rather than destroyed anything.