Another Illegal Conversion. Information and Help Required.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by VIX on July 9, 2009 at 16:49

Oh boy-there you go.
I suggest someone take a photo of this just to 'help' the planning enforcement officers who might neglect to spot this minor detail [ if they ever bother to do a proper inspection.]

Watch out for the multiple doorbells stuck onto a plank of pine that will never work....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stuart on July 9, 2009 at 19:35

Thanks Birdy. I haven't told Patrick Sullivan so he should still be doing a site visit this week based on my complaint last week (see above post) that while it looked like 2 flats, it was actually being converted into more.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alison P on July 9, 2009 at 19:30

I'm sure I'm being naive, but why is planning enforcement so understaffed and unable to deal with this?

I've seen other posts that mention the low pay and high turnover of staff in that dept., but was wondering earlier (as I watched 3 parking attendants stroll down the road) why it can't be made into something with more bite - a bit like the traffic wardens? Haringey clearly put efforts into parking enforcement because it is a way of generating income - but isn't there money to be made out of catching people who are breaking planning law?? I know there are considerable fines at stake - is the problem that landlords can find so many ways of evading them or getting a delay? Or are the fines that the council can enforce too low to be worth the effort?

Are there any councils out there who deal with this (dodgy HMO conversions) better? Is there any scope for making the penalties a more effective way of putting people off? Or is this something that is fairly unique to this part of the world.

Sorry, too many questions. Just very frustrating, but I don't need to say this to anyone reading this post.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stuart on July 10, 2009 at 20:44

A further update.

I had a long conversation today with both the planning officer reviewing the application for a certificate of lawfulness and his boss. It turns out that the Haringey website only has the application for the certificate of lawfulness itself and some designs of the property (the purpose and date of which is not clear). However, Planning revealed that the applicant has also filed (a) a statutory declaration (b) an electricity bill for a 69a and a 69b from 2001/2 and (c) the council tax valuation. (C) is not an issue because even the planning officer admitted that it appeared to show that the property was last banded as a single dwelling and the VOA site confirms that (thanks for the tip Vix). However, (a) and (b) have not been posted on the Haringey web site so it's very difficult to investigate and query them.

I raised this with Planning in my call. The upshot is that they say that:

- there is no statutory requirement on the council to consult or even ask for objections/comments for an application for a certificate of lawfulness
- the planning officer looking at this application said that he would probably ignore any comments anyway
- they only look at the applicant's evidence and usually take it at face value unless there is obvious fraud or other uncertainties
- because of the recent hoo-ha, they are now introducing a consultation process for some (but not all) applications. It is not clear which applications it will apply to. It is not in place yet. No other council has this process.

They did not know why the council web site where this application can be found actively allows third parties to submit comments. This ability to comment is not part of the new consultation process.

The Senior Planning Officer I spoke to did not know whether or not the evidence (a) and (b) could (or indeed should) be included on the web site. He will investigate and let me know next week. The actual planning officer looking at the case refused point blank to give me any further information about the evidence (including (see below) a reference number from the alleged bill used as evidence).

I then spoke to Powergen (now Eon) (the alleged supplier on the bill supplied) and they said that they think they only supplied to a single property but that they cannot confirm this without the reference number from the bill. As above, so far, Planning are refusing to let me see the bill or even tell me the reference number on it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VIX on July 10, 2009 at 21:11

Re:
"I then spoke to Powergen (now Eon) (the alleged supplier on the bill supplied) and they said that they think they only supplied to a single property but that they cannot confirm this without the reference number from the bill. As above, so far, Planning are refusing to let me see the bill or even tell me the reference number on it."

Bushy, are planning having a laugh at us all? That means that possibly they are trying to hide the fact that if they give you the reference number it will prove it was a single dwelling.
Anyone who requests so, is allowed to view any planning applications, that's how I discovered that the Gas Bill submitted as evidence by the developer next to us was faked, it was not put online [surprise surprise] nor were the faked tenants agreements. The letter wasnt even an original, but a B&W photocopy with the worse fudging I have ever seen-it shouted FAKE as soon as you looked at it. No reference numbers and when British Gas were called they confirmed it to be a fake.
Re:
"- they only look at the applicant's evidence and usually take it at face value unless there is obvious fraud or other uncertainties"
This is bull s**t. That was the old excuse and things have, and are being tightened up. If there is an objection they have to look into it, its in the public interest. In this case you guys are claiming that you suspect fraudulent activity.
Re:
"The actual planning officer looking at the case refused point blank to give me any further information about the evidence (including (see below) a reference number from the alleged bill used as evidence)."
He/she has no right to withhold information like that. I would suggest lodging a formal complaint about this person. Alan Stanton would be a good person to get to request to see those documents, as a councilor they can't refuse him.

Why is planning covering up for these buggers?
Please report this to Nora David's chief case officer immediately or to Alan Stanton.
BTW, The council tax nearly ALWAYS catches them out.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on July 11, 2009 at 1:35

Bushy, Many of the points you made earlier today (10 July) have been covered by VIX.

You, Nora Mulready, VIX, me, Ian Sygrave, Liz and other people on HoL have all been questioning and challenging this so called 'system' of dealing with 'evidence' for 'Certificates of Lawfulness' (the 'L' is often silent). Radio 4 is now preparing a programme on it.

Senior officers have given assurances that the system is being tightened-up. If front-line staff have not yet been told, we can only hope this is an oversight and will be corrected without delay.

Planning files are public documents. If the public are now expected to access them online, then removing key documents from the online file makes a nonsense of the system. Especially since it now costs money to access the paper file. What pretends to be a more open and transparent system becomes nothing of the sort. Instead, it will prevent access and make it harder to detect dodgy practice by owners and their agents.

It may be that practice in Haringey is much the same as other London Boroughs. I don't know. But the existence of deficient systems elsewhere doesn't justify them here. On the contrary, it's a chance for Haringey to do better and even become a leader in this area.

For years, local authorities have been encouraged to spent millions on ICT with the promise of lower costs from efficiencies. I've been sceptical about how often these savings have been real. But in this case, I've no doubt that online information can make a real difference. But only if it's accurate and complete.

I can understand Planning officers worrying about extra work being created. What they don't seem to realise is the potential for local residents to become their allies in resisting not just 'Hobbit Homes' but the degradation of whole streets and neighborhoods turned into human 'hutches'.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VIX on July 11, 2009 at 8:19

If the planning staff can't do their job properly and resedents have to 'fill in' and do the job of 'detective' and enforcement for them, why are these peple working. Are they not starting to look Like incompetents? Or is there something darker going on but they think it's 'business as usual'.
He arrogance of the officer you had to speak with Bushy is shocking. These peple are public servants, they should be acting for the Good of the community, not the good of gread.
Officers are now supposed to consult locals and have always been obliged to consider any objections to HMO/COL. It really worries me that they are not embracing the new guidlines nor greatfully accepting residents taking a pro active role in looking after their neighborhoods.

As I said yesterday, I think a formal complaint needs to go to the top. Get these so called planning officers looked at.
Does anyone know the names?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stuart on July 13, 2009 at 20:26

A further update. The property is now on sale with Winkworths - there is the usual For Sale sign up outside the property, indicating that it is being sold as two flats - a ground floor and first floor.

Anyone out there with any influence over Winkworths to let them know it is subject to an enforcement action Case number HGY/2009/1080 and also suspicions of a fraudulent application for a certificate of lawfulness? I believe David Lammy's office have previously wielded their influence to ask estate agents to stop selling properties subject to enforcement action.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Hatch on July 13, 2009 at 23:54

If there is a for sale board up, then the essential elements of the home information pack should be in place. You cannot legally market a property (since April 2009) until you have this. In this case there needs to be a HIP for each flat (if being seperately marketed).

The planning issues should be raised in the local authority searches.

{The local authority search deals with Local Land Charges such as Compulsory Purchase Orders, Local Financial Charges, Planning Applications etc. This is the main search carried out by solicitors when first instructed by you to purchase a property. It is a record of many local matters affecting a property that will not have been registered against the property at the Land Registry}

If the search is not available on the first day a property is marketed, the current rules allow for this to be added to the pack within 28 days.

IF... there is an investigation, my point is this... a purchasers solicitors should pick up on it if it is documented in the search!

Also, if a purchaser needs a mortgage, the purchasers solicitor will also act (in part) for the lender. The solicitor has a duty of care to both his/her client and the lender, and has to disclose anything negative to the lender. In addition to this, my understanding is that the solicitor has to be on the lenders panel of recognised solicitors, and not a sole practitioner.

I hope this helps shed more light on the mechanics behind legally marketing a property.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VIX on July 14, 2009 at 12:11

I found Winkworths very open and honest, we bought our home through them. There was no self bibbing war, they never wasted our time with veiwings, our house purchase went very smoothly with them.
Im sure they would be approachable to call.
Does this mean that the COL has been granted? despite objections and warnings to the planning office that there is a very high chance that fraud has taken place? Are we sure the home pack hasnt been 'fudged' as well?
Its probably the same owner buying it back.

Does anyone fancy calling Winkworths? Ill give them a call if no one else wants to? Not sure what to say though-that the conversion is under question as to its lawfullness?-any ideas let me know.
Better still going for a viewing? ; ))

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Birdy_Too on July 14, 2009 at 13:00

Winkworths have been contacted and informed about the situation.

We sold and bought to Winkworths and I know it's incredibly en vogue to hate Estate Agents but they were fine with us and I have had no beef with them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Hatch on July 14, 2009 at 15:30

Not to get off the subject, but a quick comment!

That's good to hear Birdy... I note it is not the first time you have said this, and it is good to hear some positive stuff from time to time.

I believe that local agents should be more in touch with the community, and by mentioning the positive stuff (in addition to the usual negative stuff) they will become increasingly more aware of the power of a reputation. It's then upto them which path they choose to tread!

Good or bad, a reputation has to be earned!

We all benefit from better communications.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page