HELPED I've been duped (planning permission)

chivers1977

Running_Horse wrote: »

A similar thing happened with two very ugly blocks of flats in Longhill Avenue in Chatham, Kent. The developer squeezed in extra flats (which I think were allowed to stay) and damaged a chalk bank on the site, which they were ordered to reinstate (not sure how you replace a compacted chalk bank that took nature centuries to create). One can only wonder how Medway Council building control failed to notice what was happening during the build.

LOL, that is my view out of my back window Running Horse!!!! I get to see a nice bit of exposed chalk!

RabbitMad

Call me thick but I don't see how the solicitor is negligent. Pickles Pink bought a new build flat, his/her sols checks that planning permission was granted for the development and got an undertaking from the developers sols that PP was being adhered to. What were they supposed to do? They are not surveyors or architects, how would they know if the building was 3 meters too wide?
(not so sure about flat 13, how could the sols not spot that the address of the property was flat 13 but pp was only for 12 flats (unless they are not numbered as such)?

Is there a conveyencer on this board that could give us their view on what the process should be and was is likely to have happened?

pickles_pink

Sorry for the intrusion Pastures, I only asked as you seem very well informed - Consider it a compliment, Pickles thinks your clever. x

Rabbit, I take your point and I too would like to get the opinion of a conveyancer. Although I am sure that should I pursue a negligence suit my solicitor would guide me in this matter, I would be handy to know prior to having to pay. After all we all on this site appear to all have a united interest in saving a few pounds, with exception to lovely pastures - He just enjoys our company

So I am up early (well for a day off) as my mind is wild with thoughts on this issue. I am currently drafting a letter to the council in support of the planning application as suggested by the lovely Hugo (thank you).

clutton vbmenu_register("postmenu_7734443", true);
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan


Join Date: Apr 2006
Post Count: 2,789
Thanked 1,462 Times in 1,042 Posts



if you are to sue your ex solicitor then you will have to sue him for an amount of money which will be for you financial loss and any consequential losses of that initial loss - can you imagine doing this ? What sums will you come up with ? Will it be worth your while ?




Clutton, the main loss that I have incurred is time - Is that silly? I have had a few days off work to sit at the council offices, CAB and such but otherwise. . . . . . . . . .

silvercar

Your situation is bad enough, imagine how the owner of flat 13 feels?

clutton_2

Rabbit mad raises some interesting points here.

When you sue someone in court, it is usually because you have lost money due to their fault.

How much have you lost as a result of the developer building an extra flat and adding on extra floor space to all the other flats ?

""Clutton, the main loss that I have incurred is time "" - and since you are not in full time employment you will not have lost wages to sort out this problem so how can you claim for your time ?- i suspect that is what a judge will say.

pickles_pink

silvercar wrote: »

Your situation is bad enough, imagine how the owner of flat 13 feels?

I have a theory about this, although sold no one has moved in and I saw some correspondence sent to the flat addressed the the "Land Lord of the site" and the post box is not marked 13 it is marked LL

Has the builder possibly done something clever here?

PasturesNew

pickles_pink wrote: »

After all we all on this site appear to all have a united interest in saving a few pounds, with exception to lovely pastures - He just enjoys our company

SHE.
I'm a girly

Debt_Free_Chick

Re the financial loss .... if PP is granted, then it's you won't suffer any financial loss on that point.

Personally - I would wait for the outcome of the PP application. If successful (and I think it will be), then follow the solicitor's complaints procedure and try to get an "ex-gratia" award for distress & inconvenience. How much would feel right? £100? £200?

HugoSP

RabbitMad wrote: »

Call me thick but I don't see how the solicitor is negligent. Pickles Pink bought a new build flat, his/her sols checks that planning permission was granted for the development and got an undertaking from the developers sols that PP was being adhered to. What were they supposed to do? They are not surveyors or architects, how would they know if the building was 3 meters too wide?
(not so sure about flat 13, how could the sols not spot that the address of the property was flat 13 but pp was only for 12 flats (unless they are not numbered as such)?

Is there a conveyencer on this board that could give us their view on what the process should be and was is likely to have happened?

Yo're not thick, but the solicitors I have used for house purchases always require evidence that the building is fully legal. This means that all the planning permissions and building regulations (as required) need to be seen and certified by them, taking the other solicitor's word that all is OK is not enough. They are obliged to go to reasonable efforts to ensure all is OK, it wouldn't have taken long to do and shouldn't have delayed the process unless there was a problem, as indeed there was in this case.

As Silvercar has said, it is down to the solicitors to check this out, as any tom !!!!!! and harry can take the develpers' word that all is OK. Why employ solicitors if that's all that has to be done?

I don't know if there is a prescribed process laid down by the Law Society but certainly all the firms of solicitors I have used in the past (about 4) have been very diligent in seeking evidence, rather than simply taking on board what the vendor is telling them.

I very much suspect that a in this case judge will consider that the solicitor should have gone to reasonable lengths to protect the client's interests and has not, hence he would consider the likely outcome if the solicitor had requested proof that the planning permission was adherred to, and award accordingly.

HugoSP

pickles_pink wrote: »

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.

It is this post that leads me to consider that the solicitor just took the vendors solicitor at his word. Did he get it in writing?

Also the fact that the Law Society has ordere the OPs solicitor to refund half of the conveyancing fee makes me reluctant to conceed that he did everything he should have done to check this out. The LS will have fully investigated this, and I believe, cannot comment on members' competence or whether they could be held liable. Nor, I believe, can they order a solicitor to compensate her for her losses as a result. I suspect that this is a signal that she didn't get the service she paid for - possibly with disastrous consequences.

If I am wrong in my previous post (which I could be) and it is seen that the buyer's solicitor did act as best as he could to protect the client's interests, then he should at least have that statement in writing that could be relied upon to provide comeback for the OP.

If this is the case then the OP may have a case against the developer's solicitor for providing her solicitor with innacuarate information.

Maybe she should get her solicitor to communicate what she was told in writing and file a complaint concerning the developer's solicitor to the Law Society.

I'm not offering this as concrete advice, but it may be worth further discussion, or not. IMO the OP has nothing to lose by pursuing this.

I still say that the easiest route is to try to get the building legalised. At least the developers have put this into action.

The person who has objected risks the developer folding in the event of refusal, and he and the rest of you will lose out as a result. The developer, who I presume is a ltd company will just set up under a different name somewhere else.

The problem in this country is that there is no inspection/completion process for planning permission, as there is for building regulations.