Discovered hidden council deed after buying house – any legal options?

WIAWSNB

Section62 said:

Restrictions like this are becoming common now in places where there is 'parking stress'.  A similar restriction might apply to some or all other properties in the street, but that won't make much difference to the OP's situation, other than possibly as a counter argument to any legal action they might take in which the vendor says the OP should have known parking was restricted.  But the vendor still had an obligation to inform the OP, so I don't think that argument would get very far.

These restrictions are almost always associated with a planning consent - e.g. for newbuilds, subdivisions, conversions, extensions and change of use to HMOs.  The developer can't or won't provide adequate off-street parking, so the council imposes a planning condition which excludes the property from being eligible for CPZ permits (or restricts to fewer permits than unrestricted properties are eligible for).  In some cases the council wants car-free development, so the restriction prevents the property owners circumventing the car-free rule by obtaining parking permits.

My point was actually that if this restriction was applied only to the OP's property and as a direct result of a Planning condition being applied due to their 'split', then the vendor would have even greater cause to be aware of their anomaly in the 'hood. Ergo, claiming they 'don't know' is even less plausible.
"You really didn't know that your house was the only one with this restriction?!!"

UKresident3333

Thanks for all your responses. I've since found out the limited company the developers used owes more than it has and net worth is negative, so am I right in thinking even if I won the case (as I'm assuming they would fight it as they're in the red) I wouldn't get a pay out as they'd have to pay off their other debts first? Would it make more sense to take legal action against my solicitor as they should have spotted it?

Section62

WIAWSNB said:

My point was actually that if this restriction was applied only to the OP's property as a direct result of a Planning condition being applied due to the 'split', then the vendor would have even greater cause to be aware of their anomaly in the 'hood. Ergo, claiming they 'don't know' is even less plausible.
"You really didn't know that your house was the only one with this restriction?!!"

I'm not sure that follows.  The lack of knowledge of planning restrictions affecting your neighbours is independent of knowledge of what restrictions might or might not apply to your property.  I.e. You can know your own PD rights without knowing your neighbours.  If all the properties in the street had the same restriction then it is plausible the restriction might come up in conversation with a neighbour, but the OP has no way of proving that the vendor ever had such a conversation with any of the neighbours.

The ability to claim they 'didn't know' actually falls away with the fact they signed a deed.  Not that long ago.

user1977

WIAWSNB said:

Section62 said:

WIAWSNB said:

OP, do you have Legal Protection included in your house insurance?
And is this 'parking restriction' peculiar to only your property as a direct result of its division into two properties, or does it apply to the unmodified houses on that road too? 

The OP said:

I’ve just found out that a deed was signed between the seller and the council a few years before the sale. This deed states that no occupier or owner of the property can apply for a residents’ parking permit because the house is part of a low car housing scheme. This was a condition imposed by the council when planning permission was granted to the developers to split an existing house into two houses - one of which we purchased.

Restrictions like this are becoming common now in places where there is 'parking stress'.  A similar restriction might apply to some or all other properties in the street, but that won't make much difference to the OP's situation, other than possibly as a counter argument to any legal action they might take in which the vendor says the OP should have known parking was restricted.  But the vendor still had an obligation to inform the OP, so I don't think that argument would get very far.

These restrictions are almost always associated with a planning consent - e.g. for newbuilds, subdivisions, conversions, extensions and change of use to HMOs.  The developer can't or won't provide adequate off-street parking, so the council imposes a planning condition which excludes the property from being eligible for CPZ permits (or restricts to fewer permits than unrestricted properties are eligible for).  In some cases the council wants car-free development, so the restriction prevents the property owners circumventing the car-free rule by obtaining parking permits.

My point was actually that if this restriction was applied only to the OP's property as a direct result of a Planning condition being applied due to the 'split', then the vendor would have even greater cause to be aware of their anomaly in the 'hood. Ergo, claiming they 'don't know' is even less plausible.
"You really didn't know that your house was the only one with this restriction?!!"

But it doesn't apply only to this property, the same principle will apply to every "new" property created since the permits came into force. So any buyer with a vague awareness of that principle would be prewarned. 

QrizB

UKresident3333 said:

Thanks for all your responses. I've since found out the limited company the developers used owes more than it has and net worth is negative, so am I right in thinking even if I won the case (as I'm assuming they would fight it as they're in the red) I wouldn't get a pay out as they'd have to pay off their other debts first? Would it make more sense to take legal action against my solicitor as they should have spotted it?

There's rarely much point in suing an insolvent limited company.

Whether you'd have any luck suing your solicitor isn't something I can comment on.

silvercar

UKresident3333 said:

Thanks for all your responses. I've since found out the limited company the developers used owes more than it has and net worth is negative, so am I right in thinking even if I won the case (as I'm assuming they would fight it as they're in the red) I wouldn't get a pay out as they'd have to pay off their other debts first? Would it make more sense to take legal action against my solicitor as they should have spotted it?

It's not always that simple. it could be there are directors loans showing a negative balance, or a multitude of reasons.  Though I agree it is not a good sign.

I would ask your solicitors why they didn't inform you. 

RAS

Do you have any sort of local media, like Mytownlive?

Maybe an article or two about parking the risks of buying newly converted property could at least alert other potential buyers. Very carefully worded.

Section62

user1977 said:

WIAWSNB said:

Section62 said:

WIAWSNB said:

OP, do you have Legal Protection included in your house insurance?
And is this 'parking restriction' peculiar to only your property as a direct result of its division into two properties, or does it apply to the unmodified houses on that road too? 

The OP said:

I’ve just found out that a deed was signed between the seller and the council a few years before the sale. This deed states that no occupier or owner of the property can apply for a residents’ parking permit because the house is part of a low car housing scheme. This was a condition imposed by the council when planning permission was granted to the developers to split an existing house into two houses - one of which we purchased.

Restrictions like this are becoming common now in places where there is 'parking stress'.  A similar restriction might apply to some or all other properties in the street, but that won't make much difference to the OP's situation, other than possibly as a counter argument to any legal action they might take in which the vendor says the OP should have known parking was restricted.  But the vendor still had an obligation to inform the OP, so I don't think that argument would get very far.

These restrictions are almost always associated with a planning consent - e.g. for newbuilds, subdivisions, conversions, extensions and change of use to HMOs.  The developer can't or won't provide adequate off-street parking, so the council imposes a planning condition which excludes the property from being eligible for CPZ permits (or restricts to fewer permits than unrestricted properties are eligible for).  In some cases the council wants car-free development, so the restriction prevents the property owners circumventing the car-free rule by obtaining parking permits.

My point was actually that if this restriction was applied only to the OP's property as a direct result of a Planning condition being applied due to the 'split', then the vendor would have even greater cause to be aware of their anomaly in the 'hood. Ergo, claiming they 'don't know' is even less plausible.
"You really didn't know that your house was the only one with this restriction?!!"

But it doesn't apply only to this property, the same principle will apply to every "new" property created since the permits came into force. So any buyer with a vague awareness of that principle would be prewarned. 

Most of the councils I'm familiar with still only do this on an individual application basis, specific to the circumstances of the location.  If a developer on the same street provides adequate off-street parking then they may not have the no-permits restriction imposed.  It is also plausible that a sub-division of a property could leave one of the newly created properties without the ability to get a resident permit, whilst the other 'half' is still entitled.

For the restriction to be legally valid there needs to be some real level of parking stress - so it is also plausible that some properties on a street have the restriction because of a historic parking problem (e.g. there was a shop/factory/station nearby), but if that trip generator has since closed and parking is no longer stressed, the next application could be approved restriction free.  In this situation the restricted properties could apply for consent for removal of the original condition - which the council are probably likely to agree to if there really is no longer justification on parking stress grounds.

user1977

I'm most familiar with it in Glasgow, where it seemed to be a strict "no permits for any additional flats" throughout the relevant zones, so either developments need to have off-road spaces or are consented as being car-free. But not sure if that's ever been successfully challenged.

Section62

RAS said:

Do you have any sort of local media, like Mytownlive?

Maybe an article or two about parking the risks of buying newly converted property could at least alert other potential buyers. Very carefully worded.

Not sure that would be in the OP's interests though.

A more general campaign to get the policy overturned is unlikely to get very far either.  Whilst it might feel unfair for someone buying a home with a restriction like this, it does mean that car-free (or reduced-car) development can go ahead without excessive impacts on nearby residents.  As parking problems are one of the things frequently raised as objections, the loss of a tool the council can use to alleviate these (genuine) concerns would lead either to more parking problems, or more applications refused (but probably then successfully appealed).