UK Landlord Forum / Life

I built a self-contained small annex accommodation ( 17ft x 8ft approx..) at the back of my garden, applying for Building Control & Regulations.  I was told that because the dimensions were within certain parameters then I did not need planning permission.  I rented the accommodation for 6 months to a young lady under a lodger's agreement.  I regrettably failed to check her documents beforehand, and upon moving in, I noticed that she gave me fraudulent documents.  Having, subsequently checked her background, it transpired that she had previous bad record with previous landlords.

She immediately moved her boyfriend in, and at 2 months fell into rent arrears so I had to use her 2 week's deposit to offset against her rent.  She informed me that she was now pregnant and had approached the Council and a visiting officer came and said that the accommodation was suitable for her needs, and I would have to evict.  They also determined that she was my tenant and not my lodger as she had exclusive use of the accommodation.  At the beginning of the 3rd month into her pregnancy she stopped working completely so there was no rental income.  The utilities were inclusive so both her and her partner lived off me for upto 5 months using the electricity all day.   Comparison of my electricity bills for period November-February before tenant occupied was £40, compared to £986 for the same period whilst in occupancy. 

I am a single parent who had only made the decision to rent it to help with the cost of the build which was £20k, who now found myself in situation where I was not able to pay my own bills as well as covering the loan which I had taken out to build the annex, and was forced into a position where I had to remortgage.  After 5 months, I was able to get the Housing Benefit which the tenant was claiming paid directly to me, but by this time the arrears and legal cost were £3,500.

I served a S8 notice and was awarded a Possession Order, but the Council still insisted that I should get a bailiff warrant.  I disagreed, as the Council had a duty to her as she was living in accommodation which was not suitable for her and a baby.   I lodged a Stage 1 complaint to the Council's Chief Executive Office, and the response from Housing Department was to uphold their decision that I would need to issue her with a bailiff warrant, and that they considered the accommodation suitable for the needs of the tenant and her household.

The Council's Housing Department eventually moved her out only because Environmental Health & Trading Standards were in the area checking out rented property, and I had no alternative but to confirm the situation to them.  They informed me that they did not believe that I had authorisation to rent the annex, and said that they would need to inform Planning.  I admit being naïve in these matters, and was not aware that I could not rent the annex to a lodger as many people have lodgers in their home, but because it was not in the main house, it was not permitted. 

Planning confirmed an appointment to come and see the accommodation.  I notified Housing on a Monday that this would be happening and that the appointment was made for the following Monday.  Housing promptly moved the tenant out on the Friday as they clearly did not want Planning to find her in the accommodation They were clearly aware that they should not have endorsed her living there at all, let alone once she'd had the baby.  Infact when the visiting officer first came, it was at this point that they should have informed me that it was not permitted, but they continued to use the accommodation as their temporary accommodation for a tenant whom  they clearly had a duty for.  By the time that they moved her, the baby was 10 months.

Since this time I have been under attack by the Council who notified the Valuation Office Agency for the property to registered for Council Tax, even though it had been made clear by Planning that I could not rent the property.    I managed to get the VOA to withdraw it from the list.  They also contacted their Property Licensing Department, who charged me for a 5 year licence, even though they were made aware that the property would now not be rented.   They have taken the full fee of £640, but only given me a licence for 1 year, so it has already expired. 

The Planning department are now requiring me to remove the kitchen sink from the location.  I am objecting to this as I do not feel that it is fair that the Council could use my property as their temporary accommodation for over 15 months, and now be enforcing me to remove the sink or threatening that I will have to pull down the building.

I feel so violated not only by the tenant but also the Council who seem to have a ubiquitous control over the normal person who is powerless to do anything.   
The annex was to be used as an additional utility and living space for our family, and to compensate for a very small galley kitchen the main house.  I do not see why the Council should have benefitted from all my hard work and financial outlay and now are imposing conditions on me.

I do not wish to remove my sink, and may be taken to court by the Council.  Do you think I have a case against the Council or will they be able to enforce me? I do consider that this is a classic case of the abuse of power by a local authority..

First comment would be simply this - you seem to have a good grasp of everything that has happened, if you are taken to Court then it won't be the Council who demonstrates their unchallengable power over you - the Court will make a decision, based on the case put in front of them by both parties. So, the choice is to let the thing continue or cave-in, if you think you have exhausted any objections you can make directly to the Council, that is.

Second comment would be that you're obviously emotionally invested in this... but I don't exactly see how the Council has benefited from all your hard work? My view is that the last entity you want to be on the wrong side of is the Council. I stay well away from anything to do with them - they are often imbeciles who would like to do nothing more than enforce petty rules and regulations, likely because they are saddened by the position in life they find themselves in. Sad, but true.

Thank you for your prompt response.

In saying that 'the Council has benefitted from all my hard work', I am meaning that I have built the annex for the benefit of my family, to use the space as an extension of our home., yet I have not had the use of it'.  The Council however have had the use of it as they should have placed the tenant into their own temporary accommodation when I obtained my possession order, yet they chose to leave her there pushing for a bailiff warrant.  All the while, this saves the Council money.

I do understand that if a tenant fails to leave your property after issuing them with a  possession order then a bailiff is the only way forward.  However, this situation was different, as the accommodation was totally unsuitable for the tenant and her child and she had approached the Council who had a duty for her.  The primary need was also for the tenant to leave rather than for me to regain possession, as for me, the damage had already been done to my financial situation and I was getting the Housing Benefit paid to me directly at the time.

As I have been  now become aware that I cannot rent the space, it should be sufficient for the Council to instruct me not to do so rather than imposing conditions to remove the sink or for the building to come down.   Moreover, the experience of having rented it has been detrimental to me and is something which I do not care to repeat.  I do not understand why they must insist on me removing my sink which will benefit me and my family.  All other items that would deem it able to be lived in have been removed; fridge/freezer, sofa bed, cooker, hob, wardrobe. 

I believe they are being spiteful to me because I  dared to complain.  Therein I guess lies the essential truth, the powers that be have power on their side, but not always justice.

To cap it all, as the tenancy has been deemed to be an assured shorthold, there's a risk you'll end up on the receiving end of a claim for non-protection of the deposit from your erstwhile tenant. Still, there's no use crying over spilt milk. Learn the lessons and move on.

Yes, I've learned the lesson  as the council are now requiring me to remove all the guts and plumbing, which includes toilet, wash basin, shower and all plumbing as well as kitchen, cupboards and all plumbing.  They wish to make an example out of me as I complained, so the initial commentator was right when he said don't tussle with the Councils.

Could anyone give me an idea if the case goes to court how much it will cost for legal fees in the event that the judge were to rule in their favours, a ball park figure.  Also , could anyone suggest any legal representatives that could deal with a case of this nature.

Also, they are threatening to take down the structure if I do not comply.  The structure has been there since 2012, but the plumbing
Was added 2013.  Someone mentioned that if structure older than 5 years they can't remove it.  Is that the case.

Lastly if the case was to go to court what do you think are the chances of success.

You'd obviously have to take specialist legal advice but I don't think you've got much of a leg to stand on.

On the evidence of the facts as they stand, you converted a newly-constructed outbuilding into a self-contained domestic dwelling, without obtaining the necessary planning permission. The council only became aware of it because you had a tenant in there and now they are simply requiring you to turn it back into an outbuilding that can't be used as accommodation.

As regards structures over a certain age being immune, you may be thinking of the four year rule:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ensuring-effective-enforcement#planning-enforcement--overview

...but that obviously wouldn't apply in this case so, unless you've got some amazing weapon like a letter from the planning department saying that you don't need planning permission for the building when used as a dwelling, you're pretty much sunk.