listed building indemnity insurance

[davidflags]

Please can anyone advise me
We are in the process of buying a grade 2 listed house, We can see that there have been changes to various parts of the property, namely the windows have been repalced with double glazed hardwood top opening (sash window look alikes), there are two Velux windows set into hand made clay tiles on the granery roof and a swimming pool!
We wanted to get the listed building officer to visit the house so that we would know exactly what we were letting ourselves in for, but the vendors are understandably not keen on that idea and have instead offerd to buy an insurance backed indemnity to "protect" us from future costs.
A Good Idea? or what.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

If you have reason to suspect that unauthorised work has been carried out, it's posible that an insurer will not want to cover you, as they will not be covering an "unforseen" risk.
Unauthorised works are a criminal offence and you shouldn't be involved in covering up for the perpetrator - tell the conservation officer now and get everything sorted before going further with a purchase.

 

[Flyfisher]

The vendors may well not be keen on having the CO visit the house but that shouldn't deter you from talking to him(her) and asking questions. There's also nothing the vendors can do to prevent the CO from viewing the property externally (unless it's hidden from the nearest public place).

I don't know about the insurance position. I've heard of such policies but, in your position, I would want to be 100% certain that they would pay out and I would be seriously worried because neither you or the vendor can honestly purchase such insurance without declaring what you know of the property under the "any other material information" obligation that almost all policies, of any type, seem to require. If you don't declare, and they find out, then they almost certainly won't pay up.

It seems to me that the only way to really know what you're letting yourselves in for is to make contact with the CO, confirm what rectification works might be required (and bear in mind that you become legally liable to restore any unauthorised works if you purchase - although you won't incur the criminal liability, which remains with the original perpetrator), get some estimates for the work, negotiate a price reduction with the vendors to cover the works.

I'm sure the vendors won't be pleased with all this, but that's not really your problem is it?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The vendors may well not be keen on having the CO visit the house but that shouldn't deter you from talking to him(her) and asking questions. There's also nothing the vendors can do to prevent the CO from viewing the property externally (unless it's hidden from the nearest public place).

Actually there's nothing the vendors can do (legally) to prevent the CO entering their property if there is a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed.

 

[skier-hughes]

Is that true, they have similar powers to the police on suspicion of a crime being committed?

 

[Flyfisher]

I wondered about that point when writing my above reply. Surely a court warrant would be needed to authorise such entry?

Having said that, I recall a Richard Stilgoe comedy song called "Statutory Right Of Entry To Your Home" (BBC Nationwide or That's Life perhaps - so that dates it!) that played on the fact that there are lots of people that a statutory right of entry so perhaps a CO is on that list.

At this point I thought a link to YouTube of above song would be appropriate but, rather astonishingly, it didn't seem to be there. The web is clearly not all-knowing.

 

[Pford75]

Extract from the Planning Act 2008

Enforcement

Offences

160 Development without development consent (1) A person commits an offence if the person carries out, or causes to be carried out, development for which development consent is required at a time when no development consent is in force in respect of the development.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £50,000, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2)(a) to increase the level of the fine for the time being specified in that provision.
161 Breach of terms of order granting development consent (1) A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse the person—
(a) carries out, or causes to be carried out, development in breach of the terms of an order granting development consent, or
(b) otherwise fails to comply with the terms of an order granting development consent.
(2) Subsection (1) is subject to sections 148(4) and 149(4).
(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that—
(a) the breach or failure to comply occurred only because of an error or omission in the order, and
(b) a correction notice specifying the correction of the error or omission has been issued under paragraph 2 of Schedule 4.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £50,000, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (4)(a) to increase the level of the fine for the time being specified in that provision.
162 Time limits (1) A person may not be charged with an offence under section 160 or 161 after the end of—
(a) the relevant 4-year period, or
(b) if subsection (3) applies, the extended period.
(2) The “relevant 4-year period” means—
(a) in the case of an offence under section 160, the period of 4 years beginning with the date on which the development was substantially completed;
(b) in the case of an offence under section 161, the period of 4 years beginning with the later of—
(i) the date on which the development was substantially completed, and
(ii) the date on which the breach or failure to comply occurred.
(3) This subsection applies if during the relevant 4-year period—
(a) an information notice has been served under section 167, or
(b) an injunction has been applied for under section 171.
(4) The “extended period” means the period of 4 years beginning with—
(a) the date of service of the information notice, if subsection (3)(a) applies;
(b) the date of the application for the injunction, if subsection (3)(b) applies;
(c) the later (or latest) of those dates, if both paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) apply.
Rights of entry

163 Right to enter without warrant (1) This section applies in relation to any land if the relevant local planning authority has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under section 160 or 161 is being, or has been, committed on or in respect of the land.
(2) A person authorised in writing by the relevant local planning authority may at any reasonable hour enter the land for the purpose of ascertaining whether an offence under section 160 or 161 is being, or has been, committed on the land.
(3) A person may enter a building used as a dwelling-house under subsection (2) only if 24 hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier of the building.
164 Right to enter under warrant (1) This section applies if it is shown to the satisfaction of a justice of the peace on sworn information in writing—
(a) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under section 160 or 161 is being, or has been, committed on or in respect of any land, and
(b) that the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition is that—
(a) admission to the land has been refused, or a refusal is reasonably apprehended, or
(b) the case is one of urgency.
(3) The justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising any person who is authorised in writing for the purpose by the relevant local planning authority to enter the land.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) admission to land is to be regarded as having been refused if no reply is received to a request for admission within a reasonable period.
(5) A warrant authorises entry on one occasion only and that entry must be—
(a) before the end of the period of one month beginning with the date of the issue of the warrant, and
(b) at a reasonable hour, unless the case is one of urgency.

It's a bit confusing...since I don't fully understand why 'entry under warrant' is required if there is a right to enter without a warrant. Nevertheless, it seems that in the Stasi state that is the UK these days, almost anyone has the right to march into your home.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

It's a bit confusing...since I don't fully understand why 'entry under warrant' is required if there is a right to enter without a warrant. Nevertheless, it seems that in the Stasi state that is the UK these days, almost anyone has the right to march into your home.

Oh I do so agree. Terrible Stasi state where legislation (passed by a Conservative government in 1990 and itself simply reinforcing legislation originally passed in 1947 and revised several times subsequently) allows the appropriate authority to investigate whether a crime has been committed or not.
:roll:

 

[Schoolmarm]

It's a bit confusing...since I don't fully understand why 'entry under warrant' is required if there is a right to enter without a warrant. Nevertheless, it seems that in the Stasi state that is the UK these days, almost anyone has the right to march into your home.

I read it that 24 hours notice had to be given, so if urgent or if refused entry then a warrant can be issued to gain immediate entry.

If someone was busy smashing up the inside of a listed building then urgent entry would be required.

I could be wrong though.

 

[Pford75]

Oh I do so agree. Terrible Stasi state where legislation (passed by a Conservative government in 1990 and itself simply reinforcing legislation originally passed in 1947 and revised several times subsequently) allows the appropriate authority to investigate whether a crime has been committed or not.

I don't really care who passed the legislation...it wasn't a political point. It's more a question of the extent to which the state feels the need to interfere in people's everyday lives. Though you are probably aware that Labour has been creating new offences faster than any government in modern history.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...358/Why-is-Labour-so-keen-to-imprison-us.html

"It is now an imprisonable offence to allow an unlicensed concert to take place in a church hall. You can go to prison if your child fails to attend school, or if you smoke in a public place, or if you fail to obtain a passport for your pet donkey or if you are a child caught in possession of a firework at any time other than on or around November 5 or New Year's Day."

I'm a supporter of legislation protecting period buildings, I just think the sense of proportionality has been lost. I don't believe that it is the role of local gov't, the RSPCA, social workers, school teachers etc. to be investigating whether a crime has been committed or not. This is the role of the police and the CPS. If I happen to believe that my local councillor is in receipt of backhanders, I don't have the right to march into the offices and begin examining records & accounts...I would have to report my concerns to the police.

When we have examples of council's using anti-terror legislation to monitor parents they suspect of trying to get their children into a decent school, then I think that claims of a stasi state are reasonably justified.

 

[Flyfisher]

"Anti-terror" legislation is also currently causing many problems for photographers. Despite constant government and police reassurance that it remains perfectly legal to take photographs in public places there are countless examples of instances where people photographing tourist sights (aka potential terrorist targets) have been stopped by police and required to delete their photos, despite having no legal right to do so. Amateur Photographer magazine and Austin Mitchell MP (a keen photographer) are fighting on behalf of photographer's rights, but cases of police abuse continue to be reported.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/rights_group_liberty_issues_stopsearch_tips_news_201245.html
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/police_apologise_to_photographer_over_christmas_lights_mistake_news_165897.html
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_take_fight_to_home_office_news_227374.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm

Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable that it's now a criminal offence to "possess materials likely to be of use to a terrorist"? Perhaps I should burn all my old chemistry books just in case?