Listed house buying process - Interesting suggestion, BUT...

[Kittycat]

Hi Everyone

I've been posting on another forum about buying the Grade II listed house that we've discussed before. Someone made a suggestion that I thought was very clever but something seems not quite right about it to me. It concerns dealing with the council and avoiding getting lumbered with putting right unauthorised works by the previous owner.

I'm quoting from the other persons post in italics, below:

One of you complains to the council before you buy about unauthorised works on the building, recorded delivery.

Then after the letter is received.

Two, your solicitor asks the supplementary question on the survey, are there any potentitial enforcement actions against the property.

If the council then decides to take action. Ask them when they were informed. You then say, sorry, but you said no on date X and you are off the hook, or the council has been negligent.

On the face of it, it seems like a good idea - getting pulled up by the council for unauthorised works by a previous owner could cause real hardship. Also, I don't agree with that bit of legislation because it doesn't seem fair to penalise someone for somebody else's sins. BUT - I'm not sure if this suggestion is legal (or moral) either.

What do you think?

 

[Nemesis]

How would you know if there are unauthorised works in order to complain?

I can see many pitfalls with this advice.

 

[Flyfisher]

I understand the concern but surely there is a less 'underhand' way of dealing with it? Listed buildings are sold all the time so how do the buyers normally satisfy themselves there are no possible issues?

I imagine that this recent story is quite rare but I can understand the concern of anyone buying a listed property.

For the really paranoid, there is always the possibility of a Chancel repairs liability as well! I've read that insurance policies are available for this risk - perhaps there are similar policies for unauthorised modifications risk?

 

[Kittycat]

Nemisis,

You would know if there were unauthorised works because the surveyor would tell you.

 

[andrew gayton]

that is assuming that the surveyor picks the m up....... probably not in my experience unless they are armed with all of the files relating to approved consents. i would suggest that you approach the local authority and establish which approvals have been granted since listing...... compare this with list description (if interior is covered) and see what you have...........

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, how could a surveyor possibly be expected to know everything? OK, uPVC windows might be a bit of a giveaway but, as Andrew says, what about the removal of internal features? No-one could tell just by looking at the building.

 

[Lime]

Nemisis,

You would know if there were unauthorised works because the surveyor would tell you.

I don't think it the job of a surveyor to know anything about whether or not work has been authorised.
They may question aspects about the property that require answers, such as questions about use, rights of way, planning permission or if work has authorisation but they won't know about it themselves.
That is for you and your solicitor to find out if possible.

 

[Nemesis]

Chancel repairs:
it happens.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/6329335.stm

 

[Flyfisher]

It's a disgrace and the Church should be ashamed of itself.

 

[Moo]

Chancel repairs:
it happens.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/6329335.stm

Also today's Telegraph (and, no doubt, most other dailies)

 

[Mark]

I think trying such a cheap 'trick' would be rather pointless. It is making simnplistic assumptions neglects that any response would be to the best of the knowledge of the respondant and is rather unpleasant on a moral basis.

the council hasnt been negligent. and anyway any action taken will be the problem of the owner at the time of enforcement.

If you did that to me you wouldnt get the house.

 

[Nemesis]

And indeed, it isn't a matter of moments for a council to decide to take action - and the house could be lost to someone else in the interim.

Alternatively, if action is decided upon, then it will delay the sale for a considerable time, no purchaser's legal advisor would recommend buying under those circumstances.

However - I agree totally with the comments re a surveyor - it's not really the role of a surveyor to identify what has and hasn't had LBC.

The way ahead is surely the form asking if anything has been altered without LBC. Lying isn't a good idea, and checking what consents have been given is the role of a purchaser's solicitor.

 

[Kittycat]

Thanks for everyone's comments.

Re Chancel repairs, I heard this today from a learned source:

If, for instance, you had a field which turned out to have rectorial rights. Let's say the field was worth a lot less than the chancel repairs demand. You register yourself a limited company and make ownership of the field over to the company. Then, if the church sues the company, you just let the company fold and the church has no-one to sue. The church may get the field but it is worth less than the chancel repairs.

 

[Flyfisher]

I would think it's probably simpler to just take out an insurance policy. I read somewhere that they are less than £100; not much more than forming a limited company, and without the hassle of filing statutory reports every year.

Unfortunately, I suspect we'll see more of this in the news in the run up to 2013, by which time I think the church has to declare its interest or lose it (not entirely sure though).

Meanwhile, anyone living in 'The Old Rectory' or 'Glebe Cottage' might want to consider doing some searches, although in theory anyone is at risk.

It's bad enough that period property owners (those mostly affected by all this) already delve deeply into their (already taxed) pockets for the privilege of helping to preserve the nation's heritage; now it seems that some of them will have to stump up even more to pay for church repairs! It's a complete scandal.

Of course, the Church could quite easily decide not to harrass home owners to the point of forcing them to sell up and make a public statement to that effect, thus putting an end to the whole matter. But what are the chances of that happening?

Actually, I'm warming to the limited company idea . . . it's only until 2013 after all.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

In other, more civilised, European countries it's normal for the entire local population - church goer or not, believer or not, to continue to pay a Church Tax for the upkeep of their parish church. I remember a German friend being astonished that we don't.

 

[Nemesis]

In fact, I would consider extending this to other historic 'public' buildings... instead we have the Lottery.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2006-12-07c.1336.2