Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
leavingsoon

No Planning Permission!

Recommended Posts

I had a visit from the Planning Department a couple of days ago. Turns out my LL doesnt have planning permission for my flat - its an annex to a large house which is unoccupied. The planning nerd advised me that I will have to move out - with 6 month notice. Doesn't really bother me too much as I am planning to move in May anyway, but I wonder what my next move should be regarding the LL. The Planning dept had advised him over a year ago, the last tenant moved out as a result. I've been there since April of last year.

My view is that I am in a position to negoitate the rent, or even tell him to whistle for it as the contract is obvioulsy invalid. Can anyone give me advice on my next step forward? Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a visit from the Planning Department a couple of days ago. Turns out my LL doesnt have planning permission for my flat - its an annex to a large house which is unoccupied. The planning nerd advised me that I will have to move out - with 6 month notice. Doesn't really bother me too much as I am planning to move in May anyway, but I wonder what my next move should be regarding the LL. The Planning dept had advised him over a year ago, the last tenant moved out as a result. I've been there since April of last year.

My view is that I am in a position to negoitate the rent, or even tell him to whistle for it as the contract is obvioulsy invalid. Can anyone give me advice on my next step forward? Thanks in advance.

I don't think the planning officer can give you notice. That's up to your LL.

So you were going to move out anyway? And you are looking to take advantage of the situation, which by your own admission isn't going to affect you?

Why exactly do you think you are entitled to anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a visit from the Planning Department a couple of days ago. Turns out my LL doesnt have planning permission for my flat - its an annex to a large house which is unoccupied. The planning nerd advised me that I will have to move out - with 6 month notice. Doesn't really bother me too much as I am planning to move in May anyway, but I wonder what my next move should be regarding the LL. The Planning dept had advised him over a year ago, the last tenant moved out as a result. I've been there since April of last year.

My view is that I am in a position to negoitate the rent, or even tell him to whistle for it as the contract is obvioulsy invalid. Can anyone give me advice on my next step forward? Thanks in advance.

Negoitiate the rent down, or move out and kick up all stink with the council and the LL for allowing you to rent an illegal flat.

I'd look for compensation for the situation they put you in and having to move out.

Just make sure you name and shame on here so his address and name come up high on a google search, just to make future tennants aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is that I am in a position to negoitate the rent, or even tell him to whistle for it as the contract is obvioulsy invalid. Can anyone give me advice on my next step forward? Thanks in advance.

If you tell your Landlord to whistle for the rent, then what's to stop him from throwing you out overnight?

After all, you've just told him that there is no tenancy agreement...

As Dr Gloom suggests, you'll be in a far stronger position if you kick up a stink/take him to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you tell your Landlord to whistle for the rent, then what's to stop him from throwing you out overnight?

After all, you've just told him that there is no tenancy agreement...

As Dr Gloom suggests, you'll be in a far stronger position if you kick up a stink/take him to court.

He can squat, the LL will have to goto court to evict him, he cannot just kick him out. He's in a far better situation than a squatter, though, as he has been given permission to stay but the property is illegal - he may claim that he has the same rights as ownership/occupation as the LL. I'd say a five month rent free period is perfectly viable, after all the building is due for demolition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a visit from the Planning Department a couple of days ago. Turns out my LL doesnt have planning permission for my flat - its an annex to a large house which is unoccupied. The planning nerd advised me that I will have to move out - with 6 month notice. Doesn't really bother me too much as I am planning to move in May anyway, but I wonder what my next move should be regarding the LL. The Planning dept had advised him over a year ago, the last tenant moved out as a result. I've been there since April of last year.

My view is that I am in a position to negoitate the rent, or even tell him to whistle for it as the contract is obvioulsy invalid. Can anyone give me advice on my next step forward? Thanks in advance.

Was the planning permission for a conversion turned down? Sounds like it. Check the planning details on the council website. Normally these type of planning applications are done after the work, and an application goes in because a neighbour has got involved and informs the council. They take years to sort but the owner has to return the building back into what it was pre building work. I usually think idiot chancer LL in most circumstances but then again most small time LLs would fit into that category nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the planning permission for a conversion turned down? Sounds like it. Check the planning details on the council website. Normally these type of planning applications are done after the work, and an application goes in because a neighbour has got involved and informs the council. They take years to sort but the owner has to return the building back into what it was pre building work. I usually think idiot chancer LL in most circumstances but then again most small time LLs would fit into that category nicely.

Am I the only one who thinks the OP hasn't a leg to stand on, he and the landlord have a valid contract, the landlord can bring the tenency to an end by serving notice and, if the OP refuses to pay rent, can chase him the courts for unpaid rent. The fact the landlord had no planning permission is a completely seperate issue between them and the council and has no bearing on the legallity of the contract between the LL and the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who thinks the OP hasn't a leg to stand on, he and the landlord have a valid contract, the landlord can bring the tenency to an end by serving notice and, if the OP refuses to pay rent, can chase him the courts for unpaid rent. The fact the landlord had no planning permission is a completely seperate issue between them and the council and has no bearing on the legallity of the contract between the LL and the OP.

But hasn't the LL acted fraudently? He has entered into a contract that he hasn't the power to do so. There is no flat/apartment to rent out. This goes on a lot and is most disturbing for the tenants and I find it highly immoral. The LL knew the true situation when entering into the contract and should suffer any consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But hasn't the LL acted fraudently? He has entered into a contract that he hasn't the power to do so. There is no flat/apartment to rent out. This goes on a lot and is most disturbing for the tenants and I find it highly immoral. The LL knew the true situation when entering into the contract and should suffer any consequences.

There is a flat/apartment to rent out it's just there illegally IMPO, I know it goes on a lot and personally hate landlords, it's also immoral but if there is no effect on the tenant (the landlord serving notice wouldn't be an effect) which there won't be if the tenant is there to term then there is no comeback, again IMO. Ofcourse if the council has the tenant evicted there would be recourse to seek damages through the courts from the LL, as ever IMO.

Edit, as I said IANAL, is it criminal to build without planning (don't think so) cause then the rent could be considered proceeds of crime.

Edited by zebbedee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a flat/apartment to rent out it's just there illegally IMPO, I know it goes on a lot and personally hate landlords, it's also immoral but if there is no effect on the tenant (the landlord serving notice wouldn't be an effect) which there won't be if the tenant is there to term then there is no comeback, again IMO. Ofcourse if the council has the tenant evicted there would be recourse to seek damages through the courts from the LL, as ever IMO.

Edit, as I said IANAL, is it criminal to build without planning (don't think so) cause then the rent could be considered proceeds of crime.

It sounds like an enforcement order was being enforced and in that case it is a criminal offence not to comply. LL is full of shite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who thinks the OP hasn't a leg to stand on, he and the landlord have a valid contract, the landlord can bring the tenency to an end by serving notice and, if the OP refuses to pay rent, can chase him the courts for unpaid rent. The fact the landlord had no planning permission is a completely seperate issue between them and the council and has no bearing on the legallity of the contract between the LL and the OP.

Your not the only one, I agree.

Wether or not a property has planning permission has nothing to do with a tenants contract and his liability to pay rent. As far as I can see theres no 'ace in the deck' for negotiating a rent reduction and no claim for compensation as there is no loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not the only one, I agree.

Wether or not a property has planning permission has nothing to do with a tenants contract and his liability to pay rent. As far as I can see theres no 'ace in the deck' for negotiating a rent reduction and no claim for compensation as there is no loss.

I don't see how the two can not be related. The contract concerns a property that legally shouldn't be there. Can you have a legally-binding contract for an illegal property?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how the two can not be related. The contract concerns a property that legally shouldn't be there. Can you have a legally-binding contract for an illegal property?

If I bought a television from a TV shop on HP and it later turned out that the shop in question never got the correct plannig through and its in fact still classed as a take away - would this make my HP contract invalid? - of course not.

in a similar way Planning legislation has nothing to do with tenancy law.

In terms of house insurance - theres two types - buildings and contents. If the tenant has there own contents insurance policy and the property security meets the specification required by that policy - wether or not the property has planning permission is of no relevance to the insurance company. In terms of buildings insurance, I wouldnt like to comment, but it is of no relevance to the tenant.

In terms of whether or not the proerty is 'illegal', I dont think there is enough information provided here for us to make that determination - and I dont think thats the question being asked.

Edited by Planner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how the two can not be related. The contract concerns a property that legally shouldn't be there. Can you have a legally-binding contract for an illegal property?

They may concern the same property but the issues of tenancy agreement and planning permission are not related in law though. The landlord and the council have a legal issue to resolve but so long as the landlord provides the tenant with the accommodation indicated in thier contractual agreement the tenant has no recourse and must continue to pay rent or face the consequences just as if you or I had say were lacking a gas safety cert and refused to pay rent (in that event the landlord, who is breaking the law, would have to make alternative arrangements for us but we must continue to pay rent). If however the council force eviction of the tenant then the two issues converge in the legal sense and the tenant would have recourse through the courts (of course the landlord could simply make alternative arrangements as in the boiler example but the contractual obligation to pay rent still exists).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I bought a television from a TV shop on HP and it later turned out that the shop in question never got the correct plannig through and its in fact still classed as a take away - would this make my HP contract invalid? - of course not.

in a similar way Planning legislation has nothing to do with tenancy law.

A bad analogy because the shop isn't what you're paying for. There's nothing illegal with the TV. If there was (e.g. it had been stolen, by the HP company) then that would be more akin to this situation.

In terms of whether or not the proerty is 'illegal', I dont think there is enough information provided here for us to make that determination - and I dont think thats the question being asked.

Surely if it hasn't had planning permission then it's illegal? I was under the impression that ignoring planning laws was illegal - that's why they're laws, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may concern the same property but the issues of tenancy agreement and planning permission are not related in law though. The landlord and the council have a legal issue to resolve but so long as the landlord provides the tenant with the accommodation indicated in thier contractual agreement the tenant has no recourse and must continue to pay rent or face the consequences just as if you or I had say were lacking a gas safety cert and refused to pay rent (in that event the landlord, who is breaking the law, would have to make alternative arrangements for us but we must continue to pay rent). If however the council force eviction of the tenant then the two issues converge in the legal sense and the tenant would have recourse through the courts (of course the landlord could simply make alternative arrangements as in the boiler example but the contractual obligation to pay rent still exists).

The link is that the landlord has signed a contract for something that he cannot legally supply (IANAL etc.) No different from me trying to rent out my neighbour's house without their permission whilst they're away on holiday, in my entirely un-legally-qualified opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link is that the landlord has signed a contract for something that he cannot legally supply (IANAL etc.) No different from me trying to rent out my neighbour's house without their permission whilst they're away on holiday, in my entirely un-legally-qualified opinion.

Also IANAL, if you rented out your neighbours home thats entirely different to renting out your own home which you own but don't have planning permission for. So I'll say again IMO the contract is valid, the home to which the contract relates may or may not be legally constructed... just thought of a good example, you're (the tenant) solicited (an illegal activity) by a prostitute (the landlord), get your end away but refuse to pay, she cries foul play, you get done for rape (not paying rent), she gets done for soliciting. In this rather crass example you had an enforcible in law contract to pay for illegal services. :lol:

Edit for the smiley

Edited by zebbedee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bad analogy because the shop isn't what you're paying for. There's nothing illegal with the TV. If there was (e.g. it had been stolen, by the HP company) then that would be more akin to this situation.

Not really. You have attempted to form a tenious link between a contract and the status of a planning consent (or lack of) which in your mind seems perfectly logical. I have equally attempted to create a tenious link between a contract and the status of a planning consent (or lack of) which in my mind seems perfectly logical.

To take your argument one step further - the property isnt what you are paying for in this case, you are paying for the right to live in that property, a right which isnt reduced or removed by its planning status.

Surely if it hasn't had planning permission then it's illegal? I was under the impression that ignoring planning laws was illegal - that's why they're laws, after all.

An enforcement notice doesnt make a property 'illegal'. We dont know what the LL response to that notice has been from the information posted, therefore we are not in a position to comment on the planning status of the property, which is lucky as it isnt relevant to the question that the o/p has asked i.e. can I break my contract and reduce rent payments?

Edited by Planner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP is in (presumably exclusive) possession and paying rent. That means there is a tenancy. The planning position is irrelevant.

So you can have an entirely legal contract for something that you have no right to have (and I fail to see how not having planning permission means you can have a legal right to the property)? If that's how it really works it's completely and utterly absurd. I fail to see how it differs from trying to rent out a property that doesn't meet any other legal requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you can have an entirely legal contract for something that you have no right to have (and I fail to see how not having planning permission means you can have a legal right to the property)? If that's how it really works it's completely and utterly absurd. I fail to see how it differs from trying to rent out a property that doesn't meet any other legal requirement.

By your rational if you don't have planning permission you don't own the thing and as such when they tear it down would have no obligation to pay up and make restitution. However you own it and so do have legal right to it and can have a legally binding contract for its rental and also when the council pulls it down be compelled to pay for that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By your rational if you don't have planning permission you don't own the thing and as such when they tear it down would have no obligation to pay up and make restitution. However you own it and so do have legal right to it and can have a legally binding contract for its rental and also when the council pulls it down be compelled to pay for that as well.

I didn't think that you were owed any restitution if they tore it down. Tough luck for not following the rules when you built something that you had no legal right to build - just as when they crush the car that you were driving around untaxed or confiscate all those ripped DVDs, and would they regard a contract for hiring either of those out to someone as any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think that you were owed any restitution if they tore it down. Tough luck for not following the rules when you built something that you had no legal right to build - just as when they crush the car that you were driving around untaxed or confiscate all those ripped DVDs, and would they regard a contract for hiring either of those out to someone as any different?

You're not, you have to pay restitution for the costs of it's demolition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you can have an entirely legal contract for something that you have no right to have (and I fail to see how not having planning permission means you can have a legal right to the property)? If that's how it really works it's completely and utterly absurd. I fail to see how it differs from trying to rent out a property that doesn't meet any other legal requirement.

The point is at the present time the OP's occupation is not unlawful. He is entitled to remain in occupation and to get what he bargained for.

If in the future his occupation becomes unlawful then you can ask if he has any remedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 309 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.