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

silvercar

FlorayG said:

Gosh that's so sad but I agree with everyone else, there's no comeback on anyone else, it's all the flat owners 'fault' for not completing due diligence. Planning only deal with planning issues. Builders just do what they are told. The solicitor would have assumed all required details were sorted out. The fact that the council made repairs to the roof and sent the flat owner an invoice for part of the cost clearly shows that the council still own the roof

I don’t think your last statement is true. Even if the niece owned the loft area, it would be the internal loft space, the freeholder would still be responsible for the outer roof.

saajan_12

swingaloo said:

A couple of years after buying she decided to apply for planning permission to turn it into a 2 bed duplex, putting a bedroom upstairs in the roof space and having the bathroom/toilet moved upstairs as well. The cost was quite excessive but she was happy as it was putting value on the property.

Planning permission was given and the work went ahead, inspected at each point by building control.
...

She feels the council should have told her when she applied for planning permission that it was not her property to convert. The council say that property sale and planning are 2 different departments so planning would not know she didn't own the roof space even though it was ex council property.

swingaloo said:

TheSpectator said:

TheSpectator said:

All goes back to the original purchase under right to buy - what dis the deed say. Will say this is what solicitors are for (advising what you are actually buying)

I perhaps should have caveated my comment that it depends on what questions were asked of the solicitor - if it's clear from the title deeds that the roof space wasn't included well that's down to your friend.

No fault on the council's part so and I can only see a costly legal battle whoever they want to blame with no guarantee of success.

I'm in agreement with that in terms of it being costly to fight it.
 When I asked if the deeds showed the roof space was included the reply I got was 'Well it doesn't say it is but it doesn't say its not'.'

Planning permission is one thing, did they check anything else before doing the work, namely whether she owned the lease on the space? Relying on 'the deeds doesn't say its not" included is ridiculous, it also doesn't explicitly exclude the neighbour's flat, but you wouldn't assume its included.  

Its not up to the council planning department to check and inform her of this - 
(a) its a different department, the fee only covers normal planning checks by the planning department. They wouldn't work for free to also check deeds. 
(b) people routinely check planning BEFORE investing in a new purchase, as there would be no point if they can't use the property as they intend. So even if they had seen the space wasn't owned by OP, that wouldn't be alarming. 

swingaloo said:

She then divorced and had the property valued to pay her ex out.
All good so far.
...
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.

Did she not require a mortgage for the buy out, and did she decide to forgo the full checks? She effectively increased her stake ie bought more of the flat without all the checks on deeds etc, which is her own choice and 'fault'. Otherwise this would have been caught at the stage of transferring to the partner, saving the 'extra' money on the higher valuation. 

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.

No differing opinion there. A solicitor would advise what WAS being purchased, that likely happened in the form of "here's the deeds, please confirm that matches what you physically saw". They wouldn't list everything you're not purchasing, nor would they visit the property. 

swingaloo said:

Her partner wants to see a solicitor to try to establish blame because he says that 'either way she is going to lose thousands for something that is not her fault'.  Im not sure that doing that wont just be throwing money away.

Can I ask for opinions please. Thank you.

It is her fault, not in the nefarious sense but as in her responsibility. She made changes to a property without checking she owned it. No one else's fault.