Buying a house with an enforcement notice?

Cat2011

So - I've been pondering about purchasing a house. It has an enforcement notice against it, and I'm wondering where I'd stand if I purchased it as it seems to be a bit complicated.

There was a main house on a plot of land with one title deed. An annexe was built, with planning permission, as long as the annexe was occupied by relatives of those occupying the main house (basically a granny annexe). The owners rented out the annexe to strangers. The council found out and issued an enforcement notice, saying the occupants must be relatives etc.

At some point, the title deed was split into two, with the main house on one and the annexe on another title deed. There are seperate mortgages and seperate addresses for the two properties. The bank has repossessed the main house. The original owners live in the annexe. The main house is up for sale.

If I were to purchase the main house, presumably the council would then expect me to comply with the enforcement notice or "face prosecution or a criminal record" as they put it. However I don't see how it's possible to comply without breaking and entering and then trespassing on anothers property as I would not own the annexe, and therefore cannot ensure that my relatives would live there!

Do the council get to approve splitting of title deeds? Or is it outside their remit? I'm just wondering if the title split was done legitimately. If it was I don't see how the enforcement notice is enforceable on the main house?

Obviously I'm getting proper legal advice on this, but any opinions from others would be great.

Debt_Free_Chick

Cat2011 wrote: »

If I were to purchase the main house, presumably the council would then expect me to comply with the enforcement notice or "face prosecution or a criminal record" as they put it.

Your solicitor will sort this out (mention it! Sorry, I see you're taking advice), but it seems to me that the original terms - of the annexe only being occupied by relatives (as a "granny annexe") have now been rescinded, as the titles (ownership) of the two properties are now separate.

Do the council get to approve splitting of title deeds? Or is it outside their remit? I'm just wondering if the title split was done legitimately. If it was I don't see how the enforcement notice is enforceable on the main house?

Obviously I'm getting proper legal advice on this, but any opinions from others would be great.

No, the Council don't approve the splitting of titles. And here's an interesting thing ... does the splitting of the title nullify the previous planning condition? Or does the planning condition effectively trump the splitting of the title? I really don't know, but see what others say.

BTW - do you know when the titles were split? It could be that the Council are time-barred from taking any action.

seven-day-weekend

You will need a letter from the Council stating that the Enforcement Notice has been complied with (if it has). Get your Solicitor onto it.

Cat2011

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

No, the Council don't approve the splitting of titles. And here's an interesting thing ... does the splitting of the title nullify the previous planning condition? Or does the planning condition effectively trump the splitting of the title?

I think that's exactly what it all boils down to...Hopefully the split deed will trump the councils planning condition . Solicitor is trying to get back to me today, so will see what they say.

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

BTW - do you know when the titles were split? It could be that the Council are time-barred from taking any action.

I don't have all the dates. But planning permission was given Mar 2007. The enforcement notice was given Dec 2011. I believe the planning condition is unenforceable 4yrs after the building works are completed, so depends when the building was completed! There might be an easy get out free card if they've got their dates wrong. Any way I can find out when the works were completed?

The time to comply with the enforcement notice runs out in July. This house really seems to have got the councils backs up, so I'm a bit nervous about joining the party - I have wondered why the bank in possession hasn't sorted out the problem, but I guess they don't want to waste the money on solicitors fees and just want to get the house off their books.

Cat2011

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

BTW - do you know when the titles were split? It could be that the Council are time-barred from taking any action.

Further reading/translating of the legal pack - and I think the building was completed 13th Mar 2008, and the annexe registered as a seperate title 27th Mar 2008.

Even if I decide not to go ahead - I've learnt a lot about property legal packs!

Fuzzyness

CAt2011, have a look at my response on ebuild.

Cat2011

Thanks Fuzzy . Its looking a little more positive. Still waiting for the solicitor to get back to me tho!

DVardysShadow

Cat2011 wrote: »

... I think that's exactly what it all boils down to...Hopefully the split deed will trump the councils planning condition . Solicitor is trying to get back to me today, so will see what they say.

I am thinking that neither the planning condition nor the splitting of deeds will trump the other. Which will be a deeply unsatisfactory situation for all.

I imagine that as you are buying the original part of the combined property, the sellers will be forced either to become your relatives or to cease living there and install some of your relatives - and ultimately to have the annex knocked down.

Wherever this goes it is unlikely to be sane or pleasant. Remember that the original planning condition was probably applied to appease neighbours, so think what you will be moving into the middle of.

On the whole, I suspect that your mortgage lender will take a dim view of the proposition. And if you are buying without a mortgage, I would suggest you get one for this property to test the proposition that you would be able to sell to buyers requiring a mortgage.

silvercar

I wonder if the mortgage lender new the title deeds had been split and that they were repossessing only one part of what they originally gave the mortgage on!