HELPED I've been duped (planning permission)

pickles_pink

He didn't see the certificate,

I asked him what he'd done and his reply was, " I checked with the builders solicitor to ensure all planning consents had been adhered to -They said that they had, I'm so very sorry,"

This looks to have happened across the board.

21castlehill

I personally don't see how they could have even sold the flats without having a completion certificate. I thought if completion certificate is signed then council is happy with the build & there should be no comeback.

If they have managed to sell on without a completion certificate then the laywers IMHO have been negligent.

My laywers put us through hoops before we could purchase a house just because they couldn't find the building warrant for an internal wall being made into an arch instead of a wall.

silvercar

There would have been a completion certificate, this shows the building complies with building regs and is issued by a completely different department to the planning department.

There would have been one certificate showing that planning permission had been granted and another to show that the building was constructed and finished to building regs standards. The gap is that what was built didn't comply with the planning permission!

The builders are at fault for not building the structure that was approved. We employ solicitors to stop this happening, so the fault lies initially with the builders and secondly with the solicitors for not spotting and sorting this.

Debt_Free_Chick

There's something very odd here. 12 purchasers ..... how many different solicitors representing the buyers ... and NONE of them saw the PP?

pickles_pink

right I've just dug out the completion certificate,

It is dated Feb 2006 (I bought in Sept 2005????? and was 4th or 5th in)

Description of work - Ground and first floor flats only with the exception of the incomplete common access and stair case.

Compliance with building regs - it is certified that so far as the council have been able to ascertain after taking all reasonable steps in that behalf, the substantive requirements of building regulations are satisfied.

(I must appologise for my typing, spelling & grammer - I blame it on the fact that I currently have a broken are and so am sort of hover typing one armed and with perhaps 2 fingers!!!!! it never rains but it pours eh.)

So any way that's the completion certificate

pickles_pink

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

There's something very odd here. 12 purchasers ..... how many different solicitors representing the buyers ... and NONE of them saw the PP?

Odd indeed my friend someone has done something very dodgy somewhere along the line.

(above should say broken arm doh!)

Debt_Free_Chick

pickles_pink wrote: »

Does any one know - can councils revise a completion certificate?????

No - I don't think it's feasible. But be aware that the completion certificate applies only to compliance with Building Regs and not Planning Permission. There is no check to ensure that any development is completed in line with PP. The Council rely on any breach of the PP being reported to them.

Although they are "closely aligned", Building Control is a completely separate team to the Planning team.

The reason why there is no "liaison" between Building Control and Planning is that .... not all Building Control issues require PP. You can work at home that doesn't need PP, but does need compliance with BC (or Building Regs).

Each team relies on applications. So you apply for PP ... and that is processed. Separately, if you need to apply for BC, then you apply for that.

They don't inspect every development to check whether PP or BC is needed.

Hence - when the application was made (by the developer) for the BC completion certificate, the BC team didn't check that they had PP. Firstly - it's not their department (and they don't about Planning Law). Secondly, they were simply asked to inspect for compliance with BC.

It's entirely feasible that a development would get BC without PP. The two are completely separate processes.

HTH

silvercar

You have the building regs certificate, so it did comply with the building regs. It was just that it didn't have permission to be built as it was.

The builder's solicitor must have realised he was acting on the sale of one more flat than there was planning consent!

As for your dates, if common parts weren't complete before you moved in, the completion certificate would follow later. The builder would have given an undertaking to obtain the building regs certificate and pass it on.

Building regs aren't the problem here. The issue is that planning wasn't followed. So when your solicitor obtains assurance from the builder's solicitor that the building complied with planning he was misled. Now whether he was misled by the builder's solicitor or whether the builder misled his solicitor is unknown.

silvercar

building regs people check the building at quite a few stages.

Don't know of planning people having to do the same.

The fault clearly lies with the builder, squeezing extra profit out of the build at the expense of complying with the regulations.

His solicitor must have been blind:

Builder: hows the sales going?
Solicitor: very well, legals completed on 13 of the 12 flats you had permission to build, here is the money!

clutton_2

""12 different solicitors failed to spot the fact the building didnt have planning permission." - astonishing !!! - but were there 12 different solicitors ? or did the developer suggest you use their recommended solicitors ?

If all purchasers used different sols , it sounds as if PP was granted - its impossible that 12 people did not spot this - and if that is the case, and if the Building Regs inspector did not spot this extra flat being built during the phased routine inspection visits, then surely you have an excellent case to sue the council ?

btw - i assume this "3m too big" is too high (to accommodate the roof flat ?)

The development in scotland was one which Hatton and Grand were involved in - i will try to find further details.