'illegal' mock-Tudor castle he tried to hide behind 40ft hay bales

chelle2k9

does any1 know when this is up at high court?

olias

mynameisdave wrote: »

Where did the 50K come from if he is on benefits and owns land? The land is classed as an asset and therefore savings. What benefits is he on?

So are you saying that anyone who owns their own home/car/furniture etc etc (all assets!) has to have the value of them taken into consideration when assessing their right to benefits?

Olias

mynameisdave

Having just signed on 7 weeks ago they catagorically stated that any equity in property assets is regarded in the same way as having savings. If you have more than £16,000 in savings you cannot claim income based benefits. A car and furniture would not be fall under the same ruling.

olias

mynameisdave wrote: »

Having just signed on 7 weeks ago they catagorically stated that any equity in property assets is regarded in the same way as having savings. If you have more than £16,000 in savings you cannot claim income based benefits. A car and furniture would not be fall under the same ruling.

That doesn't include the home you live in

Olias

charliee_3

RDB wrote: »

With the way the economy is and more and more homeless people about, it may happen that more and more people try doing what Mr Fidler did especially since he got away with it.

House prices are still way above the long term mean and wages are falling instead of going up to meet the still inflated house prices.

More and more tent city`s will be springing up all around us like this one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAP7fOQdOr8&feature=channel_page

i used to work near parliament square. There is that guy there protesting about the war. he's been there ages and there are a few tents there with his supporters in.. i was thinking how great.. i could pitch my tent next to his, go to work across the road, no travel costs, no rent, etc and just spend a few hours in the evening protesting.. how many people could afford to LIVE in that part of london, close to everything, have a wash at work, launderette for the washing, go home to parents or friends at weekends...and when the weather gets bad in the winter.. get a 6 month lease and join the protest again in the spring!!.. nice!!?? :rolleyes:

RDB

mynameisdave wrote: »

Where did the 50K come from if he is on benefits and owns land? The land is classed as an asset and therefore savings. What benefits is he on?

We talked about this about 100 posts ago on this thread, Mr Fidler is very smart he has done something like putting it all into someone elses name, so he controls it but doesnt own it.

I dont know the details but you have to hand it to him, he has been successful and made a mockery of the local council.

harryhound wrote: »

My local council got shafted by this dodge:
Planning Inspector gives permission personal to the applicant for a breech of use of land for 3 years.
Person with that personal permission promptly sells the land.
New owner pretends to be running the business on behalf of the previous owner if anyone asks.
After about nine and a half years council planning department, with prodding from local residents, wakes up and after ten and a half years organises a public enquiry.
Public enquiry lasts 5 minutes.
Idiot council looks extremely foolish having flushed thousands of public money down the drain.
All planning departments should have a section dedicated to non conforming users and regularly monitor what is happening to that land both physically and legally.

Perhaps Fiddler has sold the castle to his wife's uncle and nobody has noticed?

Harry.

BTW Anyone who thinks that there is not a minority in this country who are prepared to lie on oath, especially in the comfort of a solicitor's office or in the awe inspiring environment of a planning enquiry, then that person does not live in Saff Essex (or make expenses claims at the palace of Westminster:rolleyes:).
I would be fascinated to know how many people have ever been prosecuted for perjury at a planning enquiry?

A bit off thread, but can Planning Officer explain the English definition of a House In Multiple Occupation - that seems to cause a lot of muddle amongst the likes of the student community.

So he is living the life of luxury on benefits with tax payers money, and laughing at the local council.

harryhound

A bit off thread, but can Planning Officer explain the English definition of a House In Multiple Occupation - that seems to cause a lot of muddle amongst the likes of the student community.

It seems the definition for licensing landlords is:
5 adults and 3 stories and 2 households = HMO

Even with that somewhat slack definition, slum landlords have realised it is possible to turn a normal 3-4 bedroom family house into 11 "self contained" micro flats (previously known as "bed sits").

Obviously it is most unlikely that this "conversion" will comply with the building regulations and planning permission is unlikely to be given.

However the technique is to do the "conversion" anyway and then pretend that the council has failed to notice for 4 years.

Bingo - home and dry.
Slum = business as usual.

Harry.

Waite
Three million people live in privately rented accommodation, yet in 2006, when the Housing Act came into force, 40% of such homes failed to meet the government's decent homes standard. The very worst conditions often being found in houses in multiple occupation. It's why Labour made licensing the sector a commitment in its manifestos of 1997 and 2001.

In Scotland any property shared by three unrelated adults, needs a licence. And in Northern Ireland, a registration programme has been introduced for all HMOs.

But in England and Wales, it's a very different, and a very patchy picture, when it comes to licensing.

Rhyl, here in Denbighshire in North Wales, was once a thriving seaside resort but for the past 30 or 40 years its fortunes have declined and many of its historic hotels and boarding houses on the seafront here have been turned into bedsits and flats. HMOs, all too often, where slum landlords, says MP Chris Ruane, make money out of misery.

Ruane
Some of them are from Essex and London and Birmingham ...

Loved it.
Thought for the day:
Would slum landlords exist without a system that gives rent money to claimants and allows them to find their own accommodation.
I think the answer is yes but the benefits system is obviously not helping.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ltnq2#synopsis

crazygaijin

RDB wrote: »

Can I ask a question to all the inspectors on here.

If Mr Fidler just built it illegally and lived in it for 4 years or more without any problems but never tried to get a lawful development certificate, could he just wait until an inspector enquires about it and then apply for the LDC?

What Im asking is can you apply for the lawful development certificate after you have been found out about?

With the way the economy is and more and more homeless people about, it may happen that more and more people try doing what Mr Fidler did especially since he got away with it.

House prices are still way above the long term mean and wages are falling instead of going up to meet the still inflated house prices.

More and more tent city`s will be springing up all around us like this one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAP7fOQdOr8&feature=channel_page

Im not a planning officer but from what I have been reading yes you can just wait until someone investigates then go for a lawful development certificate.

Mr Fidler should have just waited to see if someone investigated, maybe that day would never come, but if it does then you can just apply for the LDC.

confused31_2

So lets get this right then mr fidler as got away with it, fair play to him if theres a way to bend the rules and you can get away with it.

I suspect a lot of people are jealous of what this mans done, especially the ones who kept on posting he wont get away with it.

I say well done Mr Fiddler, i think the way he done it was a great idea, but then they came out with it needed to be visable, it seems to me they change the rules to suit them so Mr fiddler as just done the same to them.

If i was mr fiddler i would have took the hay stacks down and if anyone made a complaint i would just say the hay wasnt there, the house as, it must be your eyes playing up.

mynameisdave

I suspect a lot of people are annoyed because an obviously wealthy man has set out to deliberately break the law and at the same time is expecting society to fund his lifestyle and make him rich.

But I'm only guessing, I can't speak for everyone.

Edit: Also, how has he 'bent' the rules? He built on greenbelt land without permission. Sounds like a big snap to me, not a bending.