Planning : Does it have to be EXACTLY to plans

househero

Does a building HAVE to EXACTLY be to plans?

Buying a (nearly) 5 year old repossessed house, the planning contribution of 10k was never paid. We will have to pay this .

BUT part of the plans is that a garage was to be built (footings in, but not built) and the house doesn't have a bay window as shown in the approved drawings.

Would/Could the council declare the building non compliant?

I dont want to pay 10k to find the building is still non compliant. We will eventually finish the garage, but not the bay windows.

Gumbo

househero wrote: »

Does a building HAVE to EXACTLY be to plans?

Buying a (nearly) 5 year old repossessed house, the planning contribution of 10k was never paid. We will have to pay this .

BUT part of the plans is that a garage was to be built (footings in, but not built) and the house doesn't have a bay window as shown in the approved drawings.

Would/Could the council declare the building non compliant?

I dont want to pay 10k to find the building is still non compliant. We will eventually finish the garage, but not the bay windows.

Technically, the Council could make you alter the house to suit the planning but from what ive seen, the Enforcement Department could deem it in substainial compliance with the granted planning.

This house your buying sounds like a right mess! (judging by this thread and your other thread)

ComputerKing

Don't buy the house ok its not going to be worth it for your from your threads the house seems like a right mess and just not worth it.

househero

Haha it is a rete mess. We saw the visible problems and though OK, but when we looked harder, there were also (unexpected) legal issues. Who the hell came up with the law that makes a new owner responsible for the unpaid tax burden (including FINES!) of the previous owner! Disgusting.

Gumbo

househero wrote: »

Haha it is a rete mess. We saw the visible problems and though OK, but when we looked harder, there were also (unexpected) legal issues. Who the hell came up with the law that makes a new owner responsible for the unpaid tax burden (including FINES!) of the previous owner! Disgusting.

Its just aswell, can you imagine Joe Bloggs building 100 houses and not paying contributions on any, then selling all of them to his wife Mary bloggs and she is not liable to any contributions, so she sells them on for alot of money and then the Local Authority gets screwed, and Mr. & Mrs. Bloggs ride off into the sunset with their cocktails and beach towels!

househero

kceire wrote: »

Its just aswell, can you imagine Joe Bloggs building 100 houses and not paying contributions on any, then selling all of them to his wife Mary bloggs and she is not liable to any contributions, so she sells them on for alot of money and then the Local Authority gets screwed, and Mr. & Mrs. Bloggs ride off into the sunset with their cocktails and beach towels!

Errr no. You have got it confused there. I dont have to imagine. This is real. Im expected to pay Joe Bloggs 10k tax bill.

Joe Bloggs should be liable for his tax.

Not Mary Bloggs, or any (3rd hand) buyer.

The tax system should enforce payment from the person liable. Not by passing the buck.


In My case, the original builder did not pay the 10k contribution by passing it to the first owner.

The first owner did not pay the 10k contribution and his house was repossessed.

Now I am expected to pay their tax bill. AND THE LATE PAYMENT CHARGES!


Anyway, I dont want to throw this thread off topic. Theres other threads on the House based Tax system here. I was asking how exactly a CoCo may enforce plans to the T of the submitted plans.

sydthebeat

househero wrote: »

Errr no. You have got it confused there. I dont have to imagine. This is real. Im expected to pay Joe Bloggs 10k tax bill.

Joe Bloggs should be liable for his tax.

Not Mary Bloggs, or any (3rd hand) buyer.

The tax system should enforce payment from the person liable. Not by passing the buck.


In My case, the original builder did not pay the 10k contribution by passing it to the first owner.

The first owner did not pay the 10k contribution and his house was repossessed.

Now I am expected to pay their tax bill. AND THE LATE PAYMENT CHARGES!


Anyway, I dont want to throw this thread off topic. Theres other threads on the House based Tax system here. I was asking how exactly a CoCo may enforce plans to the T of the submitted plans.

you seem to be mixing up House Tax with Development Contributions

development contributions are NOT applicable as part of our revenue system, but are actually a charge levied by the local authority on the development.

househero

sydthebeat wrote: »

you seem to be mixing up House Tax with Development Contributions

development contributions are NOT applicable as part of our revenue system, but are actually a charge levied by the local authority on the development.

Yea, I did write it wrong there. It wasn't what I meant. I was lumping the 10k in unpaid tax/development contribution together, as no matter what, it looks like im expected to foot the bill... unless I follow the sterling example of my predecessors hahaha. I wouldnt do that, im an honest man.

db

I don't see what the problem is. The total cost of the house is NAMA Cost + €10K. If you don't think the house is worth this much then just walk away. The only problem would be if you had to pay the outstanding tax / charges before the sale goes through as I think all taxes must be cleared before the sale can be completed. Anyone who did this would be very foolish.

The other non-compliance issues are a different thing altogether and you should not touch the house unless the vendor has all planning issues resolved and has a cert of compliance.

househero

db wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is. The total cost of the house is NAMA Cost + €10K. If you don't think the house is worth this much then just walk away. The only problem would be if you had to pay the outstanding tax / charges before the sale goes through as I think all taxes must be cleared before the sale can be completed. Anyone who did this would be very foolish.

The other non-compliance issues are a different thing altogether and you should not touch the house unless the vendor has all planning issues resolved and has a cert of compliance.

Its not nama cost. It wasn't repossessed from a developer peoples homes are being repod by banks now . And we all know the banks were lending to individuals at levels above the value of the security (house).

The 'vendor' is the repossessor and they don't care about compliance, they want to ditch it 'as is'. Like you say the tax (planning contributions/property tax) needs to be paid BEFORE the sales completes, which leaves a lot of open room for getting royally stuffed.

househero

Where do I find if a house has a certificate of compliance for planning?

Where do I find the certificate of building compliance (I did see something in the plans signed off by the coco saying it was 95% complete) is that it???

Gumbo

househero wrote: »

Where do I find if a house has a certificate of compliance for planning?

Where do I find the certificate of building compliance (I did see something in the plans signed off by the coco saying it was 95% complete) is that it???

Your solicitor requests it from the vendors solicitor. The current owners should have the cert.

househero

kceire wrote: »

Your solicitor requests it from the vendors solicitor. The current owners should have the cert.

Current owner is no longer around. Its a repossession. Can it be obtained from the council some how?

sydthebeat

househero wrote: »

Current owner is no longer around. Its a repossession. Can it be obtained from the council some how?

No.

The vendor is the repossessor. Their solicitor MUST provide it as part of the conveyancing process.

mickdw

I'm sure the vendor will come up with a cert of compliance. It will have many exclusions though in this case and in all honesty will only be a means of progressing the sale and will be of little benefit to you.
The cert may state that building is not designed exactly as planning noting bay windows.
If the sale goes through, any issues that arise due to the lack of Bay windows will be 100% your problem. You should have your engineer and your solicitor carefully check the wording of the cert as some of them are literally toilet paper.
Latest one I've seen was a cert that was recently issued for a house that is build about 15 years. The cert stated that it does not take into account any alteration to design or construction that took place before the date of the cert. Given that the date of the cert was stamped as just last week, that imo was a pretty worthless cert.
As regards the 10k, only go ahead of the price is right and reflects this 10k additional cost. You appear to continually state that the vendor doesn't care about the 10k. It is your business to make them care to the point of pulling out of the sale if they don't alter their price. In assuming this 10k liability arose after you made your offer. That being the case, you request that the price be dropped to reflect this or walk away.

sydthebeat

househero wrote: »

Current owner is no longer around. Its a repossession. Can it be obtained from the council some how?

No.

The vendor is the repossessor. Their solicitor MUST provide it as part of the conveyancing process.

Gumbo

househero wrote: »

Current owner is no longer around. Its a repossession. Can it be obtained from the council some how?

No. As Syd says it would of been an engagement between the home owner and a private sector Architect/Engineer.

The council does not store any certification between private parties.