We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Chimney removal, who foots bill.
Comments
-
twopenny said:It makes no sense, yet the fact that you agreeded to the paperwork and didn't think to question it (well why would you) is the sticking point.You were sold the property, you would expect to be free of obligation but the deeds say otherwise which you accepted on purchasing.Frankly the council are taking advantage, they want it all ways. To get a sale and free from maintenance for your property but for you to pay for that that remains theirs. It's a really devious move.Yes, they are probably in law in the right but morally they are soooo very wrong. There must be a precident for this but it would take a solicitor to sort it out. One that is on your side.Can you search for a precident on the net? Can you get a one off request to a solicitor?Bought a house and problems not disclosed doesn't seem to apply if it is in the paperwork but here's a link to investigateNo searches bring up this situation that I can find. Maybe a point to consider.0
-
Eldi_Dos said:Make an appointment with your local councillor and take any paperwork concerning this issue with you, explain that their property was unoccupied for such a long period of time and had deteriorated to such an extent that they needed to remove the chimney stack but if property had been occupied and maintained this would not have been necessary. The councillor may be able to find agreement which does not to go through courts.0
-
zepherous said:Eldi_Dos said:Make an appointment with your local councillor and take any paperwork concerning this issue with you, explain that their property was unoccupied for such a long period of time and had deteriorated to such an extent that they needed to remove the chimney stack but if property had been occupied and maintained this would not have been necessary. The councillor may be able to find agreement which does not to go through courts.
One answer I would want is why property was allowed to deteriorate to an extent emergency repairs/powers were required,does not seem very good management of the housing stock.1 -
Yes that would be a good argument.
That the council had not maintained the stack/property which led to major expensive work. That it was their negligence.
Now you want another couple or three irrefutable points.
All arguments may at least reduce the amount if not get you out of this.
A search for precedents would be a good thing. See what was said.I can rise and shine - just not at the same time!
viral kindness .....kindness is contageous pass it on
The only normal people you know are the ones you don’t know very well
1 -
"the judge asked if we were sure we wanted to go ahead"
That is the judge (helpfully) telling you that you have no chance at all of winning this case.
Could I suggest that you offer to settle - maybe if you offer to pay two-thirds, say, the council will accept that?
No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
GDB2222 said:"the judge asked if we were sure we wanted to go ahead"
That is the judge (helpfully) telling you that you have no chance at all of winning this case.
Could I suggest that you offer to settle - maybe if you offer to pay two-thirds, say, the council will accept that?3
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards