FTB - please help! Should this have shown up on local search?

lynzpower

Awww what a bloody nightmare

laurat

mountainofdebt wrote:

Sorry didn't make myself clear.....when you asked the developers prior to reserving.

I see! No unfortunately not, so I guess it's our word against theirs.

Debt_Free_Chick wrote:

Careful here. The developer may have been truthful in saying there were no plans if, at the time the statement was made, the planning permission had been refused and the appeal had not yet been lodged i.e. he made the statement in between those two stages.

This possibility actually occurred to us also, so we've checked our dates.

We reserved the property on 27th May, asking the developer questions of any planning applications both then, and the weekend before.

For some reason, the local search (which says it incorporates planning applications on the site between 1977 and 17/02/2006) our solicitor has done is dated 21st March, which is another point we're picking them up on as we believe they should have done an up to date one.

Nevetheless, the planning application concerned is dated 7/11/05 and was not refused until the 03/04/06, so it is my understanding that the local search should have picked up on it.

We're trying to find out the date the appeal was lodged, so hopefully that will shed some light.

lynzpower wrote:

Awww what a bloody nightmare

Yep you can say that again!

clutton_2

would you be better of pulling the plug on this, getting your money back and trying to find somewhere else nicer to live ?

laurat

Yep clutton - that's the plan!

The problem is that the developers have nearly £4500 of our money, so we need to do this carefully and make sure we can get this back before we just walk away.

laurat

We've checked the appeal date - 16th May (i.e. before we spoke to the developers) - so am I right in thinking this information should have been forthcoming from them seeing as we asked the question?

clutton_2

""we need to do this carefully and make sure we can get this back before we just walk away""

but surely the question is do you now want to live here at all with this development going on ?

If you dont, ask the developer for money back, and if they refuse it seems to me that you have enough evidence of "lack of openness" so to speak to go to the Small Claim court for recovery (you can do it yourself online without a solicitor). Ask Trading 'Standards for their view, they have always been very helpful, and do know the law inside out.

best of luck to you

laurat

clutton wrote:

but surely the question is do you now want to live here at all with this development going on ?

Yes as I said, the plan is to walk away, because as you say, we don't want to live here anymore.

clutton wrote:

If you dont, ask the developer for money back, and if they refuse it seems to me that you have enough evidence of "lack of openness" so to speak to go to the Small Claim court for recovery (you can do it yourself online without a solicitor). Ask Trading 'Standards for their view, they have always been very helpful, and do know the law inside out.

I think you're right yes - this is what we're going to do. It's useful to use this forum as a sounding board to get our facts straight before we pull out - and it's definitely reassuring to get agreement that there has been a "lack of openness" here as you say.

Thanks

Debt_Free_Chick

laurat wrote:

We've checked the appeal date - 16th May (i.e. before we spoke to the developers) - so am I right in thinking this information should have been forthcoming from them seeing as we asked the question?

No - the developers would not have been informed of the appeal.

laurat

Debt_Free_Chick wrote:

No - the developers would not have been informed of the appeal.

Ah I see, that could be a problem then.

Jorgan_2

A couple of years ago I was acting on the sale of two properties, 6 doors apart. The searches came back within a week of each other. The first one back showed no plans for development on the field behind, the second one showed plans had been submitted for 102 houses in the field behind. I guess a lot of it comes down to timing.