110 Wightman Road - Certificate Lawfulness for 5 flats

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Karen Alexander on October 24, 2012 at 15:18

Thanks for flagging this up Nick.  I got the application sent to me yesterday, which I checked over.  I emailed the council yesterday to check that the house has indeed been used as 5 flats for more that 10 years.  I hadn't picked up from the application that the house was sold as a house in 1998 - that is very useful.  If you or any nearby neighbours have any information that would contradict the claim of use for more that 10 years it would be very useful to know and I can take it up with the council.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by NickH on October 24, 2012 at 15:50

No problem, I guess it could have passed the 10 year rule (in 2008) if they converted it quickly. If they can show that council tax has been collected for 10 years they will have the evidence they need.

The question I have is how the council tax could be collected for the 5 five flats? I guess there might not be cross checking between tax collection and planning permissions for properties.

There are several websites that obtain the land registry information and make it avaialble for free searching this is one of the well known ones:

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/110-wightman-road/london/n4-1rn/15...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on October 24, 2012 at 17:19

I know nothing about this address and my comments below don't imply this application is anything but legitimate and based on factual evidence. However, if you're in doubt about any application it's always worth running some checks.

A few years back several HoL members collaborated on a lot of work looking into this issue. (We joked about being 'community detectives'.)  We exposed some shady dealings by landlords/owners - including forged utility bills and dodgy Statutory Declarations. There was also some truly appalling practice in Haringey Planning Service at the time.

We got helpful co-operation from a few officers, especially Assistant Director Robin Payne (since promoted to another borough). As a result, the systems were tightened-up with Haringey planning staff having to follow/ask for a check-list of evidence. This was informally referred to as the "Mulready List" because a central role was played by Nora Mulready who then worked in David Lammy's office. (At the time Nora lived in a flat on the Ladder.)

It's also fair to mention the fact that we met with Claire Kober the Council Leader, who gave her backing to the changes made. (This isn't a plug for Labour, but because these days I have little positive to say about Cllr Kober. So it's pleasant to recall an occasion when she got something right.)

Can I suggest you might want to ask the planning officer concerned if the Mulready List is still in operation and to email you a copy.

One of the changes we got instituted at the time was for all the evidence submitted to be shown online. Although to be frank, we only rumbled some of the scams in operation when a group of us took it in turns to visit the Planning Office and, working in pairs, were able to spot, for instance, fake documents.

(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VIX on October 24, 2012 at 18:51

Look into the COL evidence. As one of the original 'detectives' Alan is speaking of, they might well be submitting false and fraudulent claims as to the COL. If the planning ofice are as slack as they were a few years ago then you have the right to see all utility bills that support the COL claim. Often these have been tampered with and docured.

Good luck!

best

Vix

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stuart on October 24, 2012 at 21:50

Despite what Alan says, Haringey have consistently refused to put the supporting evidence online (and hence nothing online for this one), which means you have to go down to the actual Planning Office if you want to check it out in case it might be bogus. The reason they refuse to put it online is the usual mis-citing of Data Protection laws, which is garbage because other councils put the same stuff up without quibbles - which would tend to indicate it's more likely apathy or worse. They also said that the new "Mulready" rules mean that the planning officers themselves will now check whether the supporting evidence is bona fide. Based on experience, I wouldn't put too much faith in the reliability (or tenacity) of their investigations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on October 24, 2012 at 23:19

Thanks for this correction, Bushy.

After we made a huge fuss about this issue I was under the impression that the supporting documents had been put on line. Or at least for a time? I apologise if I've got this completely wrong. Eye off yet another ball. And assuming that some learning had been done and - more important - retained and built-on.

It probably means that things are even worse than before since the documents are no longer available at 639 High Road Tottenham - which at least had reasonable facilities to sit and read the files. Are Haringey now charging fees for accessing the files? If this is the case, it raises yet another barrier to public accountability.

While I can understand why the Council might see this as a cost-cutting "efficiency saving" it's profoundly undemocratic. Also quite inefficient as it ignores the very real contribution local residents can and should make if they are "let behind the curtain" of these decisions. A contribution which of course is made for free. This process even has a whizzy New Labour name: "co-production".

If you have time and can give me a bit more information about recent Certificates of Lawful Use cases you've been looking into, I can send in some councillor's question about the general issues. I'm also - at least for the time being - on the Environment Scrutiny Panel. So I can ask the chair Cllr Stuart McNamara to raise this formally. Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VIX on October 24, 2012 at 18:53

Sold as a House might be a clue as to it not being lawful. Check its council tax banding, thats proof enough.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by linka on October 24, 2012 at 23:38

It says 'with effect from 28/08/2000' unfortunately. The house had 'five baths' as well as five bedrooms when it was sold, so presumably was already an HMO.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by hob on October 25, 2012 at 0:23

I would think that you would need proof of 5 sources of water, gas, electricity and council tax. If I wanted to have 5 en-suite bedrooms in my house that is no big deal. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 3h1fhun6r9x74 on October 25, 2012 at 0:14

Hi folks, I don't fully understand what a certificate of lawfulness is but I live at 110! I'm a bit concerned as to why people are talking about fake documents and fraudulent claims! I've rented this flat since 2007 but what happened before that I don't know. Could someone explain what this is about?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by NickH on October 25, 2012 at 11:06

The others posting on this topic are more expert in these matters than myself and will probably comment on any misunderstandings I have. I don't think you need to be worried with the conversation above as these relates to past experience of illegal conversions of houses into flats and not neccessarly with your flat. The ladder area is quite popular for HMOs and illegal conversions.

To convert a house to flats you need to go through planning permission. In some cases developers convert a property without this permission. One way they get arround this is to convert anyway and rent out the flats as a HMO (House of Multiple Occupancy) which in harringey have to be licenced to ensure proper living conditions and safety in particular fire safety.

After 10 years of use of a property as flats the owner can then apply for a Certificate of lawfulness which means the council will not pursue the owner for any past planning permission infringement. Once granted the owner can then sell each flat individual rather than the whole house. Without this permission the owner would only be able to sell the whole house which would be less profitable for them. Therefore there is a strong incentive to produce fake supporting documents.

So when people see these applications come in there is usually a bit of suspicion. If the house is a registered HMO and has been used as such for 10 years then I doubt there is anything suspicious.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 3h1fhun6r9x74 on October 25, 2012 at 13:16

Thanks for the clarification. It's a bit worrying when you see your home address scroll past on twitter and then check out the discussion and it's all about forgery and fraud! I was told about the application for the certificate but couldn't find any clear information online about what it actually meant. If my landlord was up to no good then obviously I'd want to know about it. That said I've had no reason to suspect that my landlord is dodgy but I can see why someone would want to forge documents if there's money to be made. Thanks for replying and putting my mind at rest 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page