Where does the responsibility lie with this situation? Opinions please.

cr1mson

Planning permission has nothing to do with ownership you can apply for permission without ownership. However and you should get this verified I think that you have to confirm that owners have been informed in that case. This suggests that at some point they will have made a technically false declaration during planning permission process i.e. that they owned the roof space.

Ultimately she and her ex were wrong to assume that the roof space was part of the property. Solicitor would usually ask you as purchaser to confirm that the documents reflected what you throught the property was in terms of boundaries etc so again responsbility is with your friend and her ex.

lincroft1710

Solicitors only check that vendor has good title and if there are any onerous conditions attached to the purchase and the lease and if any land attached to the property corresponds with LR or deeds' plans. If the lease or deeds don't refer to "ownership" of the loft passing with the sale from the council then your friend probably doesn't own the loft.


Planners are not obliged to check ownership of property or parts thereof, just matters relating to planning law  

loubel

The planning department is not responsible for telling your friend to check whether her lease allows her to carry out the work. The same is true with freehold properties where restrictive covenants  may prevent alterations even if planning permission is obtained.

Unless she asked her solicitor on purchase whether she was buying the roof or roof space and would be able to convert this - and they told her she was/could - then she won't have any grounds for complaint against them for this either. I would expect the property report pointed out that consent would be required to any alterations as this is standard for leasehold properties. 

I'm afraid your friend's been quite naive and has got herself into quite a predicament.

anselld

I would also say entirely self inflicted.

At the point she was buying the surveyor, solicitors, etc would only advise on the one bed being purchased unless she specifically asked "can I convert the loft at a later date?".  She only decided to convert two years later so they could not have expected to be psychic.

As for planning there is no requirement on the Council to check on ownership.   You can apply for planning permission on other peoples land but it does not give your the right to actually build.  Same applies to building control.

itsthelittlethings

swingaloo said:

35har1old said:

swingaloo said:

Thank you for the replies. 
2 differing thoughts already-
The first saying she should have checked and the 2nd saying the solicitor should advise.

We have all  been discussing it for ages this afternoon and none of us are really in agreement.

Who has the responsibility of maintaining the roof?

Thats another sticky point-

A year or so ago most of the property on the estate had work done on the roofs in 3 stages. Stage 1 and 2 were completed during which time my friend had been sent a letter telling her how much she was going to be expected to pay.
The tenant downstairs did not get a letter so from that would imply she was expected to contribute because she owned the roof?
However the 3rd phase of the work has been cancelled so she never had to pay anything. Does seem odd though, why she would be billed for it if it wasnt her responsibility.

Was the tenant downstairs a renter or an owner? Unless they owned they wouldn’t be expected to contribute.

Caz3121

I am in Scotland where leasehold is not the norm but for a leasehold property would two separate permissions not be required for alterations to the property?
1) from the Freeholder consent as per laid out in the lease
2) from planning/building control
If the council are the freeholder then the confusion may have been around thinking that the planning application would cover off both consents...which it doesn't
What does the lease say re alterations?
https://www.charlesclarke.co.uk/my-property-is-a-leasehold/

Neil49

itsthelittlethings said:

swingaloo said:

35har1old said:

swingaloo said:

Thank you for the replies. 
2 differing thoughts already-
The first saying she should have checked and the 2nd saying the solicitor should advise.

We have all  been discussing it for ages this afternoon and none of us are really in agreement.

Who has the responsibility of maintaining the roof?

Thats another sticky point-

A year or so ago most of the property on the estate had work done on the roofs in 3 stages. Stage 1 and 2 were completed during which time my friend had been sent a letter telling her how much she was going to be expected to pay.
The tenant downstairs did not get a letter so from that would imply she was expected to contribute because she owned the roof?
However the 3rd phase of the work has been cancelled so she never had to pay anything. Does seem odd though, why she would be billed for it if it wasnt her responsibility.

Was the tenant downstairs a renter or an owner? Unless they owned they wouldn’t be expected to contribute.

You beat me to it but you are quite correct in what you say. If they are a tenant then they are not an owner and if renting from the council then the council would cover their share of the cost. 

Section62

swingaloo said:

...
Friend says that she never knew she did not own the roof space and was never informed of that and that the deeds do not say she owns it but on the other hand they don't say that does not. She feels the council misled her because when she asked for planning permission to convert the roof space they never told her that she could not do it. 

Her partner thinks the council are at fault because they should have made her aware she did not own the space when they agreed to give planning permission. She wouldn't have spent thousands doing the conversion had she known. She is also annoyed as she paid off her ex with a large lump sum because the property was valued at a good figure before she found out she should not have converted the space.
...

As others have already said, two different departments and two different processes.

As part of the planning application she would have had to say whether she owned the whole of the property being developed, and serve a notice on the owners of any part of property included in the application if that wasn't her.

If she'd correctly served notice on the council housing department as owners of the roof space then they could/would have told her "You can't do that!" at the time.

It might be worth checking the planning application on the council's website to see who was consulted and what responses (if any) the planners got.  If the council's housing department were consulted and responded then the response they made may well be worth reading in full.

swingaloo

Neil49 said:

itsthelittlethings said:

swingaloo said:

35har1old said:

swingaloo said:

Thank you for the replies. 
2 differing thoughts already-
The first saying she should have checked and the 2nd saying the solicitor should advise.

We have all  been discussing it for ages this afternoon and none of us are really in agreement.

Who has the responsibility of maintaining the roof?

Thats another sticky point-

A year or so ago most of the property on the estate had work done on the roofs in 3 stages. Stage 1 and 2 were completed during which time my friend had been sent a letter telling her how much she was going to be expected to pay.
The tenant downstairs did not get a letter so from that would imply she was expected to contribute because she owned the roof?
However the 3rd phase of the work has been cancelled so she never had to pay anything. Does seem odd though, why she would be billed for it if it wasnt her responsibility.

Was the tenant downstairs a renter or an owner? Unless they owned they wouldn’t be expected to contribute.

You beat me to it but you are quite correct in what you say. If they are a tenant then they are not an owner and if renting from the council then the council would cover their share of the cost. 

Thats the point I was trying to make but I made it poorly I think. The downstairs occupier is a tenant so would not get a letter as he would not be paying. I think its confusing her why she would get a letter saying she has to pay if the council own the roof space. If they accept that she does not own the space then why send a letter asking her to pay as if she does own it.

Im going to tell her to have another look at er deeds and paperwork from when se bought the property as Im sure the answer is there and she has just not read it properly and made incorrect assumptions.

itsthelittlethings

Before doing major work on a leasehold property I think it would be reasonable to check if you were ok to do it.