Is my neighbour's extension safe? / it's on my land!

[cleaver]

Hi, We have an ongoing situation with a neighbour who has not built his extension to plan and has encroached on our land. We have employed a lawyer who is dealing with the boundary and trespass issues. Meanwhile our neighbour is submitting a retrospective plan. We employed an independent builder to check out the extent of the trespass and found that the footings of the extension encroach by approx. 6 to 10 inches onto our land. He has also sunk more than one large inspection chamber on our land (without our consent or permission) which will service three bathrooms and a utility room. Our builder has recommended that we ask building control to confirm that the foundations and drains were properly supervised so that we can be sure that our property has not been compromised. However, I am finding it impossible to get this information from BC. Q: Am I entitled to have copies of documentation pertaining to site visits and inspections? Is there another way of gaining this information? Has anyone had a similar situation and if so, how was it resolved?
THKs!

 

[^woody^]

You have no rights to see any building control documentation relating to another property/person. I don't think that you can get these via a FOI request either (unless anyone else knows?)

The foundations would/should have been supervised, so its a bit naughty trying to ask building control if they did their job properly or not, to try and use that in your complaint

The Party Wall Act if it was used, would given rights to place foundations on your property. So that is not a big deal, even if the PWA was not used

You can have the chambers and drains removed if you have not consented.

You should not really be relying on a builder for advice (no offence to builders) but a qualified surveyor or suchlike would better advise, and can act as an expert witness if need be

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Freedom of Information Act is your friend, I believe this information is in the public interest and does come under the Act.

 

[cleaver]

Hi, thanks for your responses. I will definitely pursue FOI.

Just to confirm - the party wall act was not used; ditto I have established that the Water Company was not approached for the expected permissions - they will be carrying out a site inspection soon; they were also due a fee from our neighbour which they didn't get!

Thanks for advice re: builder - we have already employed a very competent surveyor to establish the boundary - so we could use them again. to establish footings / build of the inspection chambers.

If the correct site inspections were carried out, it would have been obvious to the site inspectors that the extensions and particularly the drains, were trespassing on our land. In such a case is it normal practice for BC to request to see the relevant documentation to show that approval had been gained? e.g. from a) me b) The Water Company.

I'm no expert on building regulations but am trying to mug up as fast as I can - am I right in saying that the onus is on the owner to alert BC when a site visit is needed? If the owner does not do this, what is the worst that could happen? i.e. at what point would BC intervene and is there any leeway for waiving the visits retrospectively?

Thks

 

[^woody^]

Building control are not interested and have no remit to get involved or comment on boundary or property issues. They will check the work presented to them and that's that.

There is an onus on the applicant to notify the council when an inspection is due, but things can be looked at retrospectively, and that is not an issue. IIRC, there are only something like five statutory inspections required for a typical extension

 

[markbrick1]

not an issue now for building control or planning,
but iam sure this 8 inch will cost you a lot of money if you seek legal representation,
your best bet is sit down with your neighbour and try to come to some amnicable agreement or compensation

 

[RobinClay]

your best bet is sit down with your neighbour and try to come to some amnicable agreement or compensation

I agree with that. Face to face. Be as reasonable and pleasant as you can. e.g. "Actually, that was a bit naughty of you, but we have to sort it out amicably, otherwise neither of us will be able to sell our houses. Tell you what - I'll sell you that five foot strip of land. You pay all legal costs, and a round sum of - shall we say - five thousand pounds ? Or you can just dig it all out again..."

If it does go to Court, it always looks better if you have been "reasonable", and not lost your temper.

As for the price.... how much less is your house worth with less land; how much more is his worth with more land. Probably, being candid and realistic, not a lot. Then double it, for "pain, grief and suffering". And he pays all costs.

Or you could sell him an easement to use your land in perpetuity (under the same conditions!). But you do need a solicitor's advice, which will cost - but not much if they don't actually do anything, only give advice. Preferably verbal - they charge a lot for putting it in writing !

 

[markbrick1]

i would look at it like this,
how much will it cost to take it down and rebuild it,
how much will it cost to figt it in court though its a simple win and theres no gentlemans agreement that they could of built it so many inches over,

i lost in court a lot of money as a neighbour said i allowed him to build a post and rail fence on my land expanding his by some 4 metres wde by 40 metres long,apparantly a gentlemans agreement is as binding as a written contract,judge rucker truro crown court,

though i never did it couldnt be proved,£70 worse of and land,
thank god i sold him the house for a very expensive amount and made a good profit,

be carefull,

 

[paulf1976]

I'm not so sure you would get the information under FOI. Why is it in the public interest to see private inspection notes between two parties for work that is not yours. There would be other means to determine foundation depths to resolve your enquiry as its your land so you can dig a trench and have a look yourself. Any council would find a number of absolute exemptions to refuse it, and if not then probably refuse it under a Public Interest Test. Oh and if they used an Approved Inspector for Building Control then that can't work as FOI is for public bodies only. They would just tell you where to go.

That said, if it went to court, BC records could be requested by the court as evidence. I know this has been done before to settle serious cases.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I'm not so sure you would get the information under FOI. Why is it in the public interest to see private inspection notes between two parties for work that is not yours.

I am inclined to agree but a few years ago I asked the senior BCO in my LA if obtaining such information would be available or not under the Act and was told that it would. I have not tested the theory.

 

[paulf1976]

Let's hope its not an approved inspector then! That said, how can an FOI be justified where the 'service' is in competition with private companies but yet exists in public office? I think most LA's would use competition argument and client confidentiality, otherwise why privatised BC in the first place.

Some LA's are so lax on their FOI's though I'm sure it happens.

 

[^woody^]

A quick google shows that some building control depts have a FOI policy, and will release information

What information they will release is not clear though

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

It also begs the question why some Building Control applications/drawings are available to view online, much like online Planning registers.

 

[paulf1976]

Especially when Approved Inspectors could just come along, check the details of the plans, contact the applicant and undercut the LA's fees for the inspection stages. That's why a lot of LA's don't show everything on their BC public access pages.

 

[^woody^]

I can't imagine an AI mooching through applications and then setting prices.

The LA fees are published so its easy for an AI to just set his fees for certain projects, of a certain distance from his base, just on that alone