Tenants next door and a restrictive covenant.

2»

Comments

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,593
    edited December 2023
    It's probably reduced the value of the landlord's property, so that ought to focus his mind. If he's aware of it and has given consent to the tenants (would be extremely unusual) then he may be under the misapprehension that they have added value by extending.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • verylonglegs
    verylonglegs Posts: 3,954

    I've only just got started on this, sent a letter yesterday and had an email from landlord asking to initially discuss this on the phone. Would I be wrong to say I'd rather communication was kept via email, I'd prefer to have a record of what is said.

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,593

    I think a phone call is a bit more open and you can always follow up with an email summarising the points discussed.

    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • I would do as @rjsterry suggests. Have a call then follow up with an email, keep it fairly low key, "Just wanted to follow up and summarise the key things we discussed, just to make sure we are both in agreement". That kind of tone would be my approach.

  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,435

    I'd agree with this. I generally prefer keeping things to email as a) I don't like talking on the phone and b) as you say it gives a record but as they've asked it might come across as a bit confrontational if you say no and it sounds like they are at least keen to discuss your concerns. As RJS says, just follow up with an email along the lines of "further to our conversation I believe it was agreed that x, y and z would happen" and who is going to do what.

  • verylonglegs
    verylonglegs Posts: 3,954

    OK, useful advice so far thanks and some progress, the shed dweller is no longer to be seen but the extension seems to be a sticking point. The property is being apparently being managed by a local agent (I'd hate to see the state of an unmanaged one) and the owner has pushed it all on to them to resolve it, why have them otherwise I guess.

    I'm getting the impression pulling the extension down isn't on the agenda so I've made an enquiry with the local planning office. They said it sounds like a breach however they also say they would only pursue it if it is deemed to be sufficient harm, otherwise just encourage an application to be submitted. So the question is what do they mean by sufficient harm?

  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,435

    Loss of privacy, maybe loss of light and design issues are probbaly the main things that you could have reasonably objected to had a planning application been made so presumably they would also apply in retrospect https://www.simonlevy.net/on-what-grounds-can-you-object-to-a-neighbours-planning-permission

  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 14,615

    Safety is always a good one. Are there any electrics in it, could your house burn down. Is the roof safe in a storm. Just ham it up.

  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,435

    That's more a building regs issue than planning though.

  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,828


    Doesn't an extension have to pass building regs though, for those sorts of reasons? I seem to remember (1992) an inspector coming to check the stages as my kitchen went up, and had to sign it off. What are the remedies if a building hasn't be signed off, and hasn't been inspected, or even registered?

  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 14,615

    Yes but they'll be sub teams within the same department in the council and this is about making enough noise to get someone off their arse. Not sure on the legalities of retrospective building warrants, but to get one they'd need to demonstrate how it was constructed in some detail. If it's a bodge they probably can't do that themselves, and if it's a bodge I think they'd struggle to get an engineer to do it for them. In which case flagging safety etc potentially adds a big remediation cost, Vs pulling it down.

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,593

    BTW, Simon Levy is who you hire if you want to boss your party wall negotiations.

    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,593
    edited January 16

    No, they're completely separate. They have similar headed paper but that's as far as it goes. Talking to someone in Planning Enforcement about electrical safety will get you a blank look. Most building control is done by Approved Inspectors now rather than Local Authorities, with the LA delegating their responsibilities to private consultants. That said if something isn't right you would go back to the LA, rather than the AI.

    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 14,615

    They sat in the same room in my council, but what do I know. Same website and initial phone number as well, but you know best.

    Different functions though, yes. But this situation just needs some shit to stick to the poorly erected wall.

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,593
    edited January 16

    You would think that as they typically come under the same Planning and Development department, but I certainly wouldn't rely on them talking to one another. Local Councillors seem to be the best bet if you want inter-department cooperation.

    To be clear, it's worth approaching both, just don't assume they will pass it on.

    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 14,615

    Fair enough. It's hard enough to get some of them do actually do their job and speak to members of the public, or "customers" as some councils call them.

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,593

    When lack of Building Control paperwork will become a problem is if the landlord tries to sell. Any decent conveyancing solicitor should want to see certificates for any recent work and if the landlord can't provide them this will have a material impact on the sale. Same goes for Planning Permission.

    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • monkimark
    monkimark Posts: 1,500

    You can get an indemnity, we got one on a previous house sale (although the work was pretty minor and only required for building regs) and it was relatively cheap (under£500)

  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 14,615

    Correct. Most solicitors in my experience go back decades if the records are available.

    Hypothetically, if there is a Heath Robinson structure for which documenting construction methods, electricals, insulation etc is not possible, how would it be rectifiable in practice?

    Do building standards to a survey and then enforce what is required to the point of removing the structure?

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,593

    Depends. If it's incapable of rectification, they might suggest demolition. Insufficient foundations would be the killer. Planning enforcement are more likely to make someone demolish something, but even then there are opportunities for retrospective applications and appeals.

    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,593

    A reflection of how seriously these things are enforced. The Building Safety Act may change this - I hope it does.

    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition