exchanging contracts? internal wall removed without planning

[tony1851]

All that the 4-year rule confers is a defence in a possible enforcement action.

An effective defence, though, surely? Assuming, as you say, that it can be proved the development is more than 4 years old.

Cheers
Richard

Yes, it would be a complete defence to an enforcement notice, though the burden of proof would be on the OP.
In practice, of course, it is highly unlikely that the council would be potty enough to initiate enforcement procedings in a case like this. If they lost, they would be liable for the costs of the enforcement appeal (asuming that the OP had initially made it clear to them that he could prove that it was > 4 years old).

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

One is never unjustified in criticising you.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"You might be buying a house with nasty structural problems."
Please show what is actually incorrect about that.

"You might find that the indemnity insurance is insufficient to pay for remedial work or worthless."
Please show what is actually incorrect about that.

"You might find that the council order the extensions to be removed for planning violations (the indemnity policy you have is only for Building Regulations issues)."
Please show what is actually incorrect about that.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

If you do decide to walk away, an excellent public interest act you could do (before formally abandoning the purchase) would be to write to the council to ask them about BR and PP approvals.

In retrospect I think it was this was this statement that really got my back up. What business it is of yours or the OP's for that matter to be dobbing the seller in to the council I just don't know.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In retrospect I think it was this was this statement that really got my back up.

Oh, I see.

So because your back was up you decided to complain about something else I wrote, even though there was nothing wrong with it.

What business it is of yours or the OP's for that matter to be dobbing the seller in to the council I just don't know.

1) It is everybody's business to do things about wrongdoing - that's what being a member of society is all about.

2) If there had been problems with construction or PP which needed to be sorted out, and it had been the current owner who had created those problems then it's only right and proper that he should be the one to have to sort them out, not some hapless future buyer whose solicitor wasn't thorough enough.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

One is never unjustified in criticising you.

And doesn't that just tell us all we need to know about your rationality, objectivity, maturity and intelligence.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Dope!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Apparently you believe we need to know more about your rationality, objectivity, maturity and intelligence.

 

[limerockconstruction]

irrespective of all this witty banter, I think I'd be inclined not to bother myself. It could get messy depending on when it was done and also, as someone has rightly pointed out, that insurance companies try anything they can to wiggle out of paying up.

You seem like you have a decent budget set aside for a new house, why plunder that money into uncertainty when you could be sure about an equally nice house up the road!?!

Good luck whatever you decide to do....

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

It could get messy depending on when it was done and also, as someone has rightly pointed out, that insurance companies try anything they can to wiggle out of paying up.

Hmm, if the extensions are over 13 years ago and haven't fallen down yet then no prosecution is gonna happen.

 

[limerockconstruction]

FMT - I think as a builder I'd have no problem with it myself, and you as a surveyor can take a much more pragmatic view of the situation, but my answer was more for Joe Public really - if a house is gonna be your biggest investment you ever make, why risk it?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

You could apply the same to everything. If you educate yourself to the facts then the risk can be minimized.

I'm no surveyor btw.

 

[limerockconstruction]

My mistake on the surveyor thing - I think thats similar to my point though, some of us can be better informed and/or educated than others. And thats where the risk comes in.....

 

[geraldthehamster]

FMT - I think as a builder I'd have no problem with it myself, and you as a surveyor can take a much more pragmatic view of the situation, but my answer was more for Joe Public really - if a house is gonna be your biggest investment you ever make, why risk it?

If the OP really wants the house, I'd just get anything that might cause a real problem inspected by an expert. Or a builder I really wouldn't worry about the PP and BR side of it. It sounds as if the work is too old for that to be an issue, and even if it wasn't, the indemnity insurance will cover against any action (unless some idiot screws it up for everyone by ill-informed gossip to the council, which would make insurance impossible to get).

Cheers
Richard

 

[Homeuser]

Thanks for all the information. I believe I've some good information now compared to befiore posting this question here.

I'll go through all the possible risks with PR/BR/Insurance/Investment.

I hope there're no other risks/things that needs to be considered at this point of time.

Thanks,
Rama