interestrateripoff Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578126/Room-no-view-Shoddy-two-storey-extension-built-without-planning-permission-plunged-familys-home-darkness-taken-100-000-value.html The carer now claims £100,000 has been wiped off the value of her home and fears she'll never be able to sell the four-bed semi detached property in Woodford Bridge, north east London... Mr Ahmed strayed from the original plans and in December 2012 Helen took him to court in a civil case and he agreed to an out of court settlement of £30,000. Helen’s case about the extension blocking natural light to the windows of her home came under the 'Right to Light' Act of 1832. The law is meant to protect the owner of any home with windows by forbidding any construction that would block more than 45 per cent of that light. But the council, who upheld the complaint that the extension breached planning permission, are refusing to order Ahmed to take it down. So she got £30k but has now lost £100k on the house? Is she wanting more compo? Although how did this extension get through planning considering it's location? Although looking at some of the other pics the wall has just been left and not rended, which looks a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578126/Room-no-view-Shoddy-two-storey-extension-built-without-planning-permission-plunged-familys-home-darkness-taken-100-000-value.html So she got £30k but has now lost £100k on the house? Is she wanting more compo? Although how did this extension get through planning considering it's location? Although looking at some of the other pics the wall has just been left and not rended, which looks a mess. I don't see why the council aren't making him take it down. Neighbour of ours went to court over a non approved extension next door that came within about six inches of his supposedly detached wall. No room left for any access for attention to brickwork or guttering. It was a lengthy business but he won - bloke ordered to demolish and pay all the neighbour's costs on top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Looks an utter mess - did Mr Ahmed use a tennis racket to apply the mortar?! but I dont see why his extension should be subordinate to hers. Theyve both built right up to the property line. He should demand compo off her too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ticket2ride Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Hers looks ridonculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janch Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Arguably his extension is more in keeping with the house than hers. I've never seen a house with "wings" before and I wouldn't buy it whether or not it's £100K dearer/cheaper! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smyth Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I don't really know what she's complaining about - it looks like both sides have built right up to the boundary. Why should she be allowed to have her house come within several inches of the boundary edge, while the other guy shouldn't? She already accepted £30k for the loss of light. If the subsidence is a new thing and she can prove it is caused by the extension then thats a different story, and she should probably be allowed another claim. But then, her insurance should cover most of it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie_George Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Arguably his extension is more in keeping with the house than hers. I've never seen a house with "wings" before and I wouldn't buy it whether or not it's £100K dearer/cheaper! It looks like a four-year-old's drawing of a house. Maybe the architect was 4? Aha, here's the blueprint: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomberbrown Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 <br />Hers looks ridonculous.<br /><br /><br /><br />If that's not a new word, it damn well ought to be. I love it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ticket2ride Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 <br /><br /><br /> If that's not a new word, it damn well ought to be. I love it! Sadly I can't claim credit: adj. something that is so extremely ridiculous that one can't comprehend the full ridculousness of it. Urban dictionary: ridonculous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChumpusRex Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I don't really know what she's complaining about - it looks like both sides have built right up to the boundary. Why should she be allowed to have her house come within several inches of the boundary edge, while the other guy shouldn't? She already accepted £30k for the loss of light. Agreed. It seems a little presumptuous of her to install windows in a wall that extends to the property line. Most houses that go up to the property line don't have windows where they contact the line for this very reason. Anyway, she's had some reasonable compensation and it wouldn't be hard to brick up the window and rearrange the house, and no one would ever be the wiser. The house is only "unsaleable" because she doesn't want to spend the money obtained in compensation for putting things right. That said, it's typically much easier to get retrospective planning permission than prospective permission, especially if this results in a higher council tax band, or higher business rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smyth Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Yeah, the window thing shows how ridiculous she is being; you can't have side windows of the wall of a house that extends right up your property boundary, and then start complaining about lack of light when your neighbour builds up to theirs. I'm not even convinced she should have been entitled to her £30k right-of-llight compensation in that situation to be honest. (although if there is subsistence that is another matter). As you say, she just needs to block up the window and move it to the front/back of the room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 .....this will be happening more frequently in years to come, building and extending in any space/infill available...tarmacking gardens for car parks......more choosing to live there, more will have to put up with the consequences of a better quality of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomberbrown Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 1394547208[/url]' post='1102481350']Sadly I can't claim credit: Urban dictionary: ridonculous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hemichromis Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Well legally she has already settled for £30,000 so she has valued her damages and been compensated for it. whether the council orders him to knock it down or not, it is no longer her business as she has settled. I do think the council should get him to bring it down if he has built without planning permission otherwise everyone will be doing it! I do think that top hats should be banned on houses!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Well legally she has already settled for £30,000 so she has valued her damages and been compensated for it. whether the council orders him to knock it down or not, it is no longer her business as she has settled. I do think the council should get him to bring it down if he has built without planning permission otherwise everyone will be doing it! I do think that top hats should be banned on houses!! ....bit like soo much today, break the rules knowingly and you might get a fine or pay a few pounds in compensation, they are all up to it......the risk of penalties are well worth the potential gains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldbug9999 Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Yeah, the window thing shows how ridiculous she is being; you can't have side windows of the wall of a house that extends right up your property boundary Its against planning regulations to add new windows which look out onto neighboring property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrappycocco Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Aren't side windows supposed to be opaque or not at all? Jesus, she made a lot of dough from caring, what is the going rate for this because I'm always helping people out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Her house is described as a four bed semi. Unsure how you fit four bedrooms into that tiny box and where the attached house is. She claims to have lost £100,000 but in many towns up north such an ugly house wouldn't even command £100,000 in total. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GinAndPlatonic Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 There is something really wrong with her house... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulfar Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Her house is an absolute, eye sore. Would love to know how she got planning permission for that roof, it surely can't have been built that way. As for her neighbor, he may not have needed planning permission as sideways extensions can be done under permitted development. She is a hypocrite given that she has put windows on the boundary which is a completely out of order. I expect her neighbor has done what he has to stop her being a nosy old bint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Ray Valentine Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Its against planning regulations to add new windows which look out onto neighboring property. Interesting. I've recently had that happen next door to me............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Interesting. I've recently had that happen next door to me............. Happened to some friends of mine in Leicester too. After a campaign of harrassment they left Leicester and moved to Norfolk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Interesting. I've recently had that happen next door to me............. I don't think it's that simple from reading this: http://tna.europarchive.org/20081107021048/http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/planninginformation/planningfactsheets/planningfactsheet/ I thought they were okay if frosted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renting til I die Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) I do think that top hats should be banned on houses!! LOL ~I laughed at the comment about wings as well Edited March 11, 2014 by renting til I die Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeeky Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 It is the neighbour on the other side I feel sorry for (not the side circled in red). The roof add-on seems to be nearly touching their roof. It makes the gap she is complaining about look absolutely huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.