I'd like to know what's what

[SimonH2]

Dunno, but IIRC the complaint wasn't specifically noise, but "he's illegally running a business from home - and he's making noise late at night". I'd guess it was more likely the EH guys.

As you say, one doesn't normally associate "reasonable" and "council employee" - but in this case I believe the guy didn't take long to work out it was a hobby with some incidental beer tokens.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you think that sort of thing doesn't go on all the time, without being detected, then I think you are a little naive.

I'm not naïve.

I just think that advising people to lie in connection with a transaction with a value of several £100,000 is bad advice.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I do not know a single person who does woodwork (unless it's carving) or metal work in their living room, bedroom or kitchen ...

That's not what he said. In planning terms this would be considered part of the domestic property, and it's use would be considered as part of your domestic use of the property.

... I have learned from that PlanningPortal.gov.uk website;

Where. presumably, you would have read:

Rules governing outbuildings apply to sheds, greenhouses and garages as well as other ancillary garden buildings such as swimming pools, ponds, sauna cabins, kennels, enclosures (including tennis courts) and many other kinds of structure for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.

But the floor is not going to be laminated and the walls are not going to be painted magnolia, it is just going to be a very dull, concrete... "hut" if you like.

What on earth is the relevance of that?

The reason why we would like to add a toilet and sink later on is because we could rent out the workshop to groups of people in the evenings; people interested in teaching their woodwork skill(s) for example, and I would prefer if they didn't have to use the main house toilet for obvious reasons.

Would you prefer it if you had significant public liability issues?

I am hoping without any delusion that we can build it without any sort of permission and then add a toilet and sink later on with permission; although that seems very backwards as they could ask us to demolish the workshop/existing building if they inspected it on the application to add plumbing and did not approve of it, although the workshop would be sticking to guidelines like:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/outbuildings/

We could add the some of the plumbing work (and hide it), but do not add a physical toilet or sink until we have received the full permission. This would be the cheapest and safest option as we would want to install some of the plumbing work while we are building, instead of causing problems later when installing properly if the permission was granted. It would be at an extra cost to install a full plumbing system in the garden and if it did not get accepted, would be an obvious waste of money.

And the reason you don't want to do all this properly and honestly is what, exactly?

 

[SimonH2]

I'm not naïve.

Maybe not, but you do a good impression.

I just think that advising people to lie in connection with a transaction with a value of several £100,000 is bad advice.

And you might have a point if at any point I had given such advice. But as I didn't, your point is ?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

<some years> down the line it goes for sale, solicitor gives you one of those forms that asks loads of silly questions

You may think them silly.

But the fact remains that they are material to a transaction with a value of several £100,000, and giving false answers is fraud.

I think we've more or less agreed that the one about electrics since 2005 is getting worthless.

You may think them worthless.

But the fact remains that they are material to a transaction with a value of several £100,000, and giving false answers is fraud.

You truthfully answer that you've build the garden "shed" and show them papers relating to planning and building control. I think it's very very very very unlikely that anyone will give them more than a second glance - "yes there's paperwork for that building", ie the solicitor will see that you have stated that you added a building, yes you had planning permission, yes you have a completion certificate for it, all boxes ticked.

But no certificate for the notifiable work of installing a water supply and a WC, and presumably no agreement from the sewerage undertaker for connection to his drains.

But no-one has lied - the form asked if there had been any building work, you tell them that you built this shed with services in it. The only time it becomes a lie to not mention the loo and sink is if you didn't do it at more or less the same time

No - the point at which it becomes a lie is when you don't truthfully answer the questions about notifiable work having been carried out.

But if you say that "in 2014 we added the garden shed", and in 2014 you put the loo in it, then there's been no lie - they asked a question and you answered it. Word your BC notification carefully "construction of garden building with relevant services" and it'll be impossible to tell. It'll need electrics and surface drainage, so "relevant services" and you'll have a completion certificate for it.

That's an intentional deception.

i.e. a lie.[/quote]

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Maybe not, but you do a good impression.

Are you genuinely unable to see that saying that advising people to lie is bad advice is not the same as thinking that people do not lie, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

But as I didn't, your point is ?

You advised the OP to carry out this without the necessary approvals, and suggested ways in which he could lie in the future.

You might not consider deliberate misrepresentation as lies, but then you might be obtuse.

 

[leeco]

Maybe not, but you do a good impression.

Are you genuinely unable to see that saying that advising people to lie is bad advice is not the same as thinking that people do not lie, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

But as I didn't, your point is ?

You advised the OP to carry out this without the necessary approvals, and suggested ways in which he could lie in the future.

You might not consider deliberate misrepresentation as lies, but then you might be obtuse.

He's just telling the OP what the OP wants to hear.

 

[SimonH2]

Are you genuinely unable to see that saying that advising people to lie is bad advice is not the same as thinking that people do not lie, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

I can see that exactly, now show me please where I advised the OP to lie ? I didn't, you are making that up be reading what you want me to have written so as to be able to criticise as usual.

You advised the OP to carry out this without the necessary approvals, and suggested ways in which he could lie in the future.

Please show me where, because I did not.


Now, lets return to the posts that you are incapable of reading correctly.
1) I said to the OP "But as suggested, you could just crack on and see if anyone notices !"
Please tell me where in that statement I suggested lying ? I see no suggestion of making any statement at all, so your accusation that I'm suggesting he "lie in connection with a transaction with a value of several £100,000".

Perhaps you could enlighten us all ?


2) Later, in reply to your naive and false statement that "They will notice when the house is sold" I pointed out that there are ways in which this wouldn't come to light.
Suppose the discussion was about driving, and there was discussion about obeying speed limits. Suppose A made a statement about some point of motoring law, B then says "you'd be caught by the police", and A replies that "I've seen people do this and there were no police around to see them". By your logic, pointing out the realities (it wouldn't automatically be detected) is the same thing as advocating that people do it.
Similarly, those programs on TV that explain how crimes were committed are nothing but a bunch of presenters advocating people go out and rob a bank (or whatever).


And while we are on it, in your long post which I'm not going to post and respond to all the errors, your state "giving false answers is fraud". Yes that is true, but if you go back and actually read what I wrote, nowhere do I advocate giving any false answer. Consider that someone decided to follow this route - build a garden building and stick a bog in it as soon as the BC inspector has gone. Consider this exchange :
B: Was any building work done since <some date>
V: Yes, we built a garden building which as you can see has electric power, water, and a loo which saves traipsing back to the house.
B: Do you have any paperwork relating to the work ?
V: Here <hands over a pile of paperwork>

There is no lie, no untrue statement, no fraud.
The buyer did not ask "is there any work not covered by the paperwork", he did not ask "do you have paperwork for all the work". Had he done so then you would be correct in saying that a lie was told, but otherwise, no. The questions asked were answered<period>

So get back on your high horse and sod off.

 

[tony1851]

Several years ago, I was acting for a client who had just sold her previous house.
She related that when filling the buyer's solicitor's form in, she dutifully declared that she had made a small opening in a wall between two rooms.
Solicitor asked for paperwork, of which there was none.

She then had to apply for a regularization from the councill, = £££. The council asked her to expose the beam for inspection, and then get a SE to do structural calcs - more £££. She then had to pay a plasterer to repair the damage to the wall = yet more £££.
Result? it took so long, the original buyer found another house, the council got a little more money towards the staff Christmas do, and the client ended up a little poorer but wiser.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There is no lie, no untrue statement, no fraud.

The subsequent installation of the WC would have been a separately notifiable activity.

The question asked by the buyer's solicitor would be, basically, "has any work been done which required building regulations approval and did you get the approval?"

Suggesting that at that point the seller could gloss over the WC installation by only mentioning the non-WC building, and providing the paperwork for the non-WC work is suggesting that the seller could lie.

So get back on your high horse and sod off.

People come here for good advice on Building Regulations and Planning Permission.

Stop telling them that they could not bother getting the proper approvals or sod off.

 

[SimonH2]

So I see that as usual, once you've been asked a specific question, which you can only answer by admitting you were wrong, you change the subject again.
So, as I asked before, now show me please where I advised the OP to lie ?

You either can show that I did, or you can admit that you've accused me of writing something I didn't. Quite simple really.


But, I will backtrack on the later bit - a little. If the OP (or anyone else for that matter) had not asked the question, and was genuinely not aware that installing the WC was notifiable, and installed it at the same time* as doing the building. If these conditions are true then it is still possible for it not to come up when the house is sold - without any lies or half-truths or omissions.
Also, should the owner die and the house be sold later - a later owner could truthfully not mention it as they may well not know what has and hasn't been done when, plus the standard form does not require a later owner to provide documents etc.

So while the original explanation of "how" is probably unlikely, the fact does very much remain that it might not come to light when the house is sold. Thus I an completely correct to point out that you made a statement which is not true (or is erroneous by omission since there are caveats to it).
Had you said that "it is highly likely to ..." you would have been correct. You didn't, you said it will .." which is not a correct statement.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think the extra loo and sink will be notifiable (building regs) - ...
But as suggested, you could just crack on and see if anyone notices !

In other words "you could just crack on and not bother notifying".

<some years> down the line it goes for sale, solicitor gives you one of those forms that asks loads of silly questions

The fact that you think them silly does not mean that they do not have to be answered, and answered truthfully.

One of them will be something like "has any work been done which required building regulations approval and did you get the approval?"

Well - you've already told the OP that he could have gone ahead without approval, so what's he to do now in answer to that question, with respect to the notifiable work he didn't notify?

You truthfully answer that you've build the garden "shed" and show them papers relating to planning and building control.

That's not a truthful answer with respect to the notifiable work he didn't notify.

You advised the OP to not be truthful in his reply.

I think it's very very very very unlikely that anyone will give them more than a second glance - "yes there's paperwork for that building", ie the solicitor will see that you have stated that you added a building, yes you had planning permission, yes you have a completion certificate for it, all boxes ticked.

No, he has no completion certificate for all of the notifiable work.

You advised the OP to be misleading in his reply.

You didn't install the loo and sink at the same time, the paperwork won't show that. But no-one has lied - the form asked if there had been any building work, you tell them that you built this shed with services in it.

He would be asked if any work had been done which required building regulations approval whether the approval had been obtained, and if so to provide details.

Not reporting the installation of the WC would be a lie.

The only time it becomes a lie to not mention the loo and sink is if you didn't do it at more or less the same time

Irrelevant - it was either notified, approved, and was signed of, or it was not.

In this case not.

But if you say that "in 2014 we added the garden shed", and in 2014 you put the loo in it, then there's been no lie

Yes there has - there has been the lie of not reporting the notifiable work of installing the WC.

they asked a question and you answered it. Word your BC notification carefully "construction of garden building with relevant services" and it'll be impossible to tell.

In other words you're advising the OP to be deliberately misleading.

You may not have actually used the term "tell lies" in your advice, but there can be no doubt that that's what you've been telling him to do.

He has come here asking for advice on Building Regulations and Planning Permission, and you have been advising him that he doesn't need to do it properly, and that he can get around his legal obligations by evasion, omission and misdirection.

Please stop doing that sort of thing, or sod off.

 

[SimonH2]

So, once again, a huge long post designed to avoid admitting that I did not advise anyone to lie or commit fraud like you have claimed, or admitting that your statement that it would come up at sale was not correct.

Note that at no point did I suggest not notifying would not have potential consequences. Nor did I state that it wouldn't come to light at sale.

The OP could crack on and do it without notifying. If he does then he could (not will, but could) have a problem later. Dealing with that does not require any lies, half truths, or fraud as there are several routes to dealing with it IF it turns out to be a problem.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So, once again, a huge long post designed to avoid admitting that I did not advise anyone to lie or commit fraud like you have claimed,

No - a long post showing that without any shadow of a doubt lying was exactly what you advised the OP to do.

Unless you'd like to try and mount a credible claim that deliberate omissions, evasions and misdirections carried out in a conscious attempt to pretend that something which needed approval had got it isn't lying.

or admitting that your statement that it would come up at sale was not correct.

Since the only time it would bother the OP if it came up at sale time would be when he was selling it, someone would either have to be spectacularly stupid or desperate for a diversionary tactic to claim that in the context of your advice to the OP I did not mean "it would come up when the OP sells the property". Which are you?

 

[SimonH2]

No - a long post showing that without any shadow of a doubt lying was exactly what you advised the OP to do.

No, a long post of rubbish, bringing together old refusted arguemnts in the hope that if you shout them long enough then they'll become true. Your argument comes down to "because I pointed out a scenario where statement might not be true, I must be advocating the actions in that scenario". By that argument, if a (say) documentary was done on how a (say) robbery was committed and the perpetrators got away - which is a staple of some type of TV program - then the documentary maker is advocating that people go out and copy the robbery.

Unless you'd like to try and mount a credible claim that deliberate omissions, evasions and misdirections carried out in a conscious attempt to pretend that something which needed approval had got it isn't lying.

And as I've explained, I have not advocating any of those. IF the questions do not require you disclose something, then it is not a requirement to disclose it. There is precedent in that, in the insurance business, as you will no doubt be aware that the insurance companies have been told well and truly that they cannot use "failing to tell them something they didn't ask" as an excuse to not pay out. Specifically, if there is a piece of information they require then they must ask for it.
The "standard questions" forms come in different wordings. I simply postulated that with some styles of wording (EDIT) of the questions it would be not be dishonest to not volunteer information that was not asked for. Plus, I have since pointed out to you that under at least one of the sets of wordings, a future owner would also not have to disclose the information - completely legally and honestly.

And, as I have pointed out but you seen incapable of understanding, the comments were made to YOU in response to your false statement.

or admitting that your statement that it would come up at sale was not correct.

Since the only time it would bother the OP if it came up at sale time would be when he was selling it, someone would either have to be spectacularly stupid or desperate for a diversionary tactic to claim that in the context of your advice to the OP I did not mean "it would come up when the OP sells the property". Which are you?[/quote]
Perhaps you would care to write that as plain english. Your exact words were "They will notice when the house is sold", which I've pointed out may not be a true statement, nor does it specify "when the OP comes to sell".

You see, you've painted yourself into a corner here. You are absolutely adamant that "not telling the complete and whole truth even if not asked for the information" is a lie and/or fraud. Yet in the same posts you defend making just such an incomplete statement but that the fact that it can be not true under some circumstances is irrelevant.