On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:05:04 +0100, "Alex Barrow" 
wrote:

>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:kh3gd41aebp5vctshuaq65j3nf8umlbpgh@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:10:13 +0100, "Alex Barrow" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Are we at least in agreeance, that its the developer ( builders ) of the 
>>> new
>>> estate & houses are the ones currently liable for this error?
>>
>> The builders may be liable to the property owners for their errors and
>> omissions but it will be the property owner or occupier who is responsible
>> for developing the site in accordance with their planning permission and
>> who would be required to repair any defects required by an enforcement
>> action.
>>
>
>
> Thanks Tony,  So does this mean if the council bill us, we can bill the 
> developer?

Sorry I was unclear.  No, the council will not bill anyone for anything in
this matter (unless it's fee for an application).  The Local Planning
Authority (council) would only make the demand that remedial work be
performed to bring the development into conformity with their grant of
planning permission.

I infer that today the Housing Association still has the opportunity to go
back to the builders and have them rectify the mistake for free.  But if
the HA accepts the builder's work and pays off any retentions then the
builder will be in the clear.  And so if the LPA later makes this demand of
the HA for conformity with the planning permission then the HA either wants
you to have the work done at your expense or else be able to do the work
and to bill you for their extra costs.

I am of course guessing at the HA's motives, but they seem to me to be
quite fair both to themselves and to you.

Tony

In message , at 01:00:29 on 
Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Anthony R. Gold  remarked:
>I infer that today the Housing Association still has the opportunity to go
>back to the builders and have them rectify the mistake for free.  But if
>the HA accepts the builder's work and pays off any retentions then the
>builder will be in the clear.

And you don't think they are responsible if they've omitted to have the 
builder correct this particular defect?

>And so if the LPA later makes this demand of the HA for conformity with 
>the planning permission then the HA either wants you to have the work 
>done at your expense or else be able to do the work and to bill you for 
>their extra costs.

If they were renting 100% of the property to the OP, then presumably the 
HA would have to pay (as landlord). So my question is this: does the 
shared ownership nature of the property mean the OP is entirely 
responsible, or should the costs be shared? (In other words is there
something different about the situation, compared to the OP carrying out 
discretionary work on the property at his own expense).
-- 
Roland Perry

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:40:05 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

> In message , at 01:00:29 on 
> Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Anthony R. Gold  remarked:
>> I infer that today the Housing Association still has the opportunity to go
>> back to the builders and have them rectify the mistake for free.  But if
>> the HA accepts the builder's work and pays off any retentions then the
>> builder will be in the clear.
>
> And you don't think they are responsible if they've omitted to have the 
> builder correct this particular defect?

Certainly, and indeed they are willing to do that right away.  But they are
also giving the OP the extra option of keeping his extra parking space so
long as he accepts their liability.  And that "omission" would be only for
the benefit of the OP and so he is being asked to underwrite any extra
expense it causes the HA.

This defect is known to the HA and they must choose whether to accept the
defective work or whether to demand that the work conforms with the site
plan.  IMO it would be unfair and unreasonable to the builder for the HA to
accept what they know to be defective work and then claim a right go back
any time up to four years later to ask for free rectification.  Words such
as estoppel and laches spring to mind.

>> And so if the LPA later makes this demand of the HA for conformity with 
>> the planning permission then the HA either wants you to have the work 
>> done at your expense or else be able to do the work and to bill you for 
>> their extra costs.
>
> If they were renting 100% of the property to the OP, then presumably the 
> HA would have to pay (as landlord). So my question is this: does the 
> shared ownership nature of the property mean the OP is entirely 
> responsible, or should the costs be shared? (In other words is there
> something different about the situation, compared to the OP carrying out 
> discretionary work on the property at his own expense).

I don't know and apparently the HA does not want that complexity.  Their
reasonable offer is that they will cure the defect now at their sole
expense - perhaps by having it done for free by the original builders - or
else they will allow the OP to enjoy the windfall extra space so long as he
assumes the risk of paying for all the work if it becomes necessary later.

Tony