Buying/selling a house with substantial non-permissioned alterations

Donald Trump

Old stone country house. Over 100 years old. Down a lane. Used to have an old stone barn/shed attached to it. The owner gutted the house and barn about 10-12 years ago and rebuilt both into a larger house (plus additional two-story extension). No planning permission was ever sought. Sold it soon after. It is going to be sold again.



Given that the timeline for planning enforcement has passed, is there any risk to a potential buyer? There would be no permission for the original house to check due to its age. So there would have been no record for a surveyor to check. But there might be other records that the original house was a fraction of the size it is today. Maybe old photographs etc.



What comeback might a purchaser have if they bought it unknowingly? The current owner could plausibly deny any knowledge of the lack of planning. Is it caveat emptor? Or is there an obligation to disclose this if it is known? Suppose someone tells the current owner (in writing) about the issue? Or is it even an issue?

Calahonda52

Donald Trump
Registered User


Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Whitehouse. Banging Ivanka...I mean Melania.

enough said for your integrity

Donald Trump

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Donald Trump
Registered User


Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Whitehouse. Banging Ivanka...I mean Melania.

enough said for your integrity

Thanks.


Very helpful.

scwazrh

Since it has been sold since the work was carried out what makes you think there will be an issue this time its being sold?

Donald Trump

scwazrh wrote: »

Since it has been sold since the work was carried out what makes you think there will be an issue this time its being sold?

It a hypothetical scenario



So lets say that the person considering buying it knows the work was done without permission.



Understandably, they do not want to buy a potential headache. I don't know - maybe they will want to extend or do something in a few years and a neighbour objects on the basis that the current structure has additions which were not authorized.



The fact that it has been sold in between does not wash it of any potential problems.......if there are potential problems.

nuac

Even if the time limit for planning enforcement action has passed ( usually seven years ) nobody will buy a house without planning permission.

If it is proposed to claim it was all built before 1.10.'64 ( when planning legislation ) commenced proof, usually by statutory declaration, would be required. It would be criminal offence to make a false statutory declaration

Donald Trump

nuac wrote: »

Even if the time limit for planning enforcement action has passed ( usually seven years ) nobody will buy a house without planning permission.

If it is proposed to claim it was all built before 1.10.'64 ( when planning legislation ) commenced proof, usually by statutory declaration, would be required. It would be criminal offence to make a false statutory declaration

The original house would have been pre '64. As would the old stone barn. Let's say shed/store instead of barn.



So you are saying that a normal standard requirement when buying a house would be that you would ask for one of these declarations? That is interesting. Thanks for that. I did not know that.



In my scenario above, could the current owner sign such a declaration given that they only own the house a few years? To change the scenario a little, suppose the original owner died and left it to the current owner. Would that change things?



Actually, I'll chose a different scenario. The house was bought 10 years ago by a company who had hoped to knock it and develop something there. So they never planned to live in it and didn't care about permission. They were interested only in the site. But the company went bankrupt and the property is now being sold as is.





(Sorry for changing the scenarios, I hope it isn't too confusing)

Donald Trump

Where might there be an official record of the previous extent of the house?

Would there be documentation somewhere for rates pre '77? Did people have to include house size etc back on those days on the returns?

dusteeroads

The property has the status of - non compliance with the period for enforcement action expired.
The expired bit applies to enforcement action the non compliance bit is forever.
The owner will not be able to apply for any legitimate planning permission on the site.
If burnt to the ground an insurance company may withhold payment or partial payment and the owner will not have permission to reinstate as was before the fire.
If the property becomes the subject of a local authority compulsory purchase order the value of the parts without permission will be rated as zero.
No law prohibits the sale but no lender would advance funds.
Previous (hypothetical) sales must have from purchasers own funds.

dusteeroads

The owner can seek to formally regularise the property with the local authority.
This may mean knocking all or part of the non compliant works down or retaining all or part of it.
After this process is successfully completed the site becomes compliant

Donald Trump

dusteeroads wrote: »

The property has the status of - non compliance with the period for enforcement action expired.
The expired bit applies to enforcement action the non compliance bit is forever.
The owner will not be able to apply for any legitimate planning permission on the site.
If burnt to the ground an insurance company may withhold payment or partial payment and the owner will not have permission to reinstate as was before the fire.
If the property becomes the subject of a local authority compulsory purchase order the value of the parts without permission will be rated as zero.
No law prohibits the sale but no lender would advance funds.
Previous (hypothetical) sales must have from purchasers own funds.

That confirms my understanding.


The question is now, how it would or could be proven? What would be available to verify that the house was not always like that given that neither the house nor the adjoining barn/shed that was incorporated would have predated the need for permission

What if the previous owner signed the statutory declaration and the current owner sells it on that basis. Then the new owner subsequently finds out the truth? Do they have any comeback?

dusteeroads

The burden of proof lays with the vendor. Proof to satisfy the legal dept of the purchasers lenders.

Donald Trump

dusteeroads wrote: »

The burden of proof lays with the vendor. Proof to satisfy the legal dept of the purchasers lenders.

So once the seller hands over the money, it's their problem and their problem alone? Caveat Emptor? In the scenario that the statutory declaration exists but is false




Anybody know whether floor area etc. was submitted in the old rates?


I am sure that the previous owner would have evidence in the form of insurance policies etc. but, given the situation, you would imagine that they would have been "lost" if anyone ever went looking for them

s7ryf3925pivug

Pretty sure you would be refused mortgage approval. An exception is that banks don't care about planning issues with external structures such as detached garages.

You can get planning permission (or the equivalent) retroactively. You need to get plans drawn up and go through a formal process.

Donald Trump

Colton Happy Tarantula wrote: »

Pretty sure you would be refused mortgage approval. An exception is that banks don't care about planning issues with external structures such as detached garages.

You can get planning permission (or the equivalent) retroactively. You need to get plans drawn up and go through a formal process.

I understand that.


My question now is how anyone could find out, or prove that it was not approved? If the purchaser goes to the Bank with no declaration, or a falsely signed declaration, what are they going to do? Most of the building has been extant for over 100 years. It was just that the whole structure was gutted and rebuilt and the "shed" part was incorporated into the house (and an extension out the back was added at the same time but using the same stone so it doesn't stand out as being out of place other than you can see the vertical join in the walls.



Are there surveys etc. that are done that would have a record of what was there?

dusteeroads

Purchaser buys property.
Applies for permission to alter it - cannot even lodge an application ( or they can but it is returned invalid with a nice letter from enforcement)
Purchaser befriends postman who delivered there for 25 years. Will give witness statement at legal action purchaser takes against vendor.
Purchaser hopes that judge doesn't say " aren't you some flute - do you not read threads on boards.ie ?"

Donald Trump

dusteeroads wrote: »

Purchaser buys property.
Applies for permission to alter it - cannot even lodge an application ( or they can but it is returned invalid with a nice letter from enforcement)
Purchaser befriends postman who delivered there for 25 years. Will give witness statement at legal action purchaser takes against vendor.
Purchaser hopes that judge doesn't say " aren't you some flute - do you not read threads on boards.ie ?"

I understand all that in the normal course of events.



Where would the record be for the local authority to determine that the structure is unauthorized? I am sure that the evidence exists somewhere officially, but where would you find that? I had the idea that maybe there might be some documents related to rates, but I don't know what details would have been there. The current owner only owned the property as it.


On the opposite side of things, suppose I had an authorized old building like that and I applied for permission to do something. I would need to prove it was authorized or pre '64 as explained above. I would do that based off this statutory declaration. In my scenario, suppose the original owner falsely signed that declaration? If nobody ever objects, how would the local authority know there was a problem? There must be a way

dusteeroads

your boring me now.
adios.

daheff

i think you will come across problems either getting bank approval for a mortgage and/or getting house insurance

Donald Trump

daheff wrote: »

i think you will come across problems either getting bank approval for a mortgage and/or getting house insurance

The country is full of old houses which get insurance and are bought and sold without problem.


Another poster's response above implied that some kind of statutory declaration would be "proof" that the house was extant and being used entirely as a residence pre '64 before planning was required. Lets assume that a statutory declaration was fraudulently signed by a previous owner (now deceased).



So my question would be how to prove otherwise? What potential sources would be available to someone trying to determine if it is correct or not? What sources would a surveyor/solicitor check for something like this?

Metric Tensor

You're looking at it from the wrong angle OP:

In the vast vast majority of cases the onus will be on the vendor to prove it is compliant rather than the purchaser to disprove it.


1. Vendor puts property up for sale.
2. Potential purchaser engages a surveyor.
3. Potential purchaser's surveyor says they have question marks of the planning compliance (note: a completely separate issue from building regulation compliance) of the property.
4. Potential purchaser's solicitor seeks proof of compliance from vendor's solicitor.
5. Vendor's solicitor produces statutory declaration.
6. Potential purchaser decides based on the advice of his/her solicitor (and possible his/her mortgage institution) whether or not to accept the declaration.
7. If the potential purchaser decides the declaration is bullsh!t the sale falls through and the vendor goes looking for the next potential purchaser.
8. Cycle continues until potential purchasers run out or someone buys it (possibly at a knock down rate).


Separately from the above - most people with a reasonable knowledge of building would be able to date the construction work to within a 10-15 year period so if the renovations were carried out after the mid-late 70s the declaration would be spotted as fraudulent from the start.

Sausage dog

OSI maps will show the outline of the buildings on the site. The scale may not be useful for exact sq. footage but definitely shows if there was a building on the site at the time either aerial photo was taken or map drawn.

sydthebeat

Me thinks the Donald doth protest too much.... And is waiting for the Internet to tell him what he wants to hear

Angry bird

Professionals in this line of work can readily spot something that's relatively new vs something very old with or without repair works, extensions, alterations and so on. It's called the wasn't born yesterday principle, the house remains unauthorised until such time as retention planning permission is sought, no guarantee it'll be obtained. And that's before you move into the world of building regulation compliance. As syd said above perhaps it's not what you're hoping to hear...