# Apartment block has  extra apartment built with no planning permission



## Marcia (28 Jul 2017)

Apartment block has illegal apartment, ie. extra apartment built with no planning permission and is illegally occupied by rental tenants.  Owner refuses to stop renting it out and insurance company will no longer provide block insurance as a result.  What are the options for the other residents - how will this impact them (assuming there is no fire / flood etc, damage of that nature) (Solicitor already engaged) thanks


----------



## SirMille (28 Jul 2017)

Have the council knock it over or board it up? 

No planning permission!, what do the councils actually do?


----------



## Palerider (29 Jul 2017)

Contact your local planning authority, they will progress, no permission means just that.


----------



## noproblem (29 Jul 2017)

Marcia said:


> Apartment block has illegal apartment, ie. extra apartment built with no planning permission and is illegally occupied by rental tenants.  Owner refuses to stop renting it out and insurance company will no longer provide block insurance as a result.  What are the options for the other residents - how will this impact them (assuming there is no fire / flood etc, damage of that nature) (Solicitor already engaged) thanks



As a matter of interest, are you talking about Ireland and if so what county?


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Jul 2017)

Is there any chance the 'extra' apartment could somehow be separated from your building and excluded from a block insurance policy? 
As in, if it's not physically part of your core building but some sort of annex?


----------



## lantus (9 Aug 2017)

It's hard to imagine how a private owner managed to add to an apartment block? Presumably from the ground up? Could you provide some clarification? 

Is the owner the original builder? Is it covered under the original planning? Just some basic questions to ask first.

However it is odd and it would normally require permission from the directors and involvement of the block insurer as a minimum.

If this has compromised the block insurance then the directors should be writing to all owners advising and should be vigorously persuing with local authority. The omc should clarify if they have permission to knock this development immediately to ensure insurance is reinstated without any delay.


----------



## Marcia (9 Aug 2017)

The original builder built an extra apartment which should have been left as a roof void. He kept it for his own private use and now rents it out.  He never applied for planning permission or a retention order. Obviously the council didn't know about it, maybe their hands are tied, I don't know. And no it can't be separated from the rest of the building as it is in the roof.


----------



## lantus (10 Aug 2017)

Ok, so he has done an attic conversion then? After the main building was completed? Or as an add on at the end of the building phase. Timelines are important.

Does the unit have its own separate entrance? I.e completely independent?

Does it exist on land registry? If yes advise it's illegal with no planning and get solicitor to undo this via the omc. If yes then also get the lenders name if there was one and advise them it has compromised the block insurance being illegally built and will be demolished without predujuice. 

Is there a separate ESB box and water meter for the unit? Or are these fed from the builders own unit? Edit: I think this is a one off not an additional unit above the builders.

I can see why the insurer has terminated the policy. Generally the roof void is the company's property.

I'd be concerned about fire regulation compliance. What level is the roof void? Is the unit part of the building fire alarm system?

Check the primary lease as to rights of access for the company. Usually they have unimpeded access to their property. If this is technically roof void then it's still theirs and can be accessed at any time.

I would be highlighting all of these potential issues to the planners and the fire officer.

I would also ask the insurer what would be required to get cover accepted on this extra unit as a back up plan. Drawings, certs etc. Not ideal but cover every angle.

Check if the tenancy is registered with the rtb. If no report it and also mention it's an illegally built unit which is soon to be demolished.

I'd also advise revenue of the illegally built apartment and the owners and tenants name. If he has no interest in planning law he is likley uninterested in tax law as well.

If I were a director I'd be checking with my solicitor that I can instruct my builder to revert the structure back immediately without any delay. Give the tenants 24 hour notice but I would be writing to them now advising that they are living in an illegally built unit on private property not owned by the landlord and that it will be demolished at any time without warning. Harsh on them i know but without block insurance you have potentially a multi million euro development totally uninsured. The directors have a duty of care to protect that at all costs.

I would be pushing my solicitor to clarify my position so I could resolve this ASAP. Have a locksmith on standby to gain access to and remove the doors of the unit to allow for demolition if required.

Edit: re your original post on impact no block insurance makes it virtually impossible to sell a unit. No lender would approve a mortgage on the basis of no buildings insurance. In theory a cash buyer would be viable but they would have to be nuts to buy knowing there is no insurance.

In the event of total loss all owners would still owe any outstanding debt to their lenders but would have no property.

It's really serious. The directors need to pursue this vigorously. If they let it drag on or do nothing they could be negligent in allowing the situation to remain unresolved and themselves be subject to a claim of negligence.


----------



## Seagull (10 Aug 2017)

How old is the building?


----------



## Cervelo (10 Aug 2017)

How big is the block of apartments ?? because I would imagine this is going to cost a lot to put right and I would hazzard a guess that the builder is not going to be forthcoming with the money
To add to Intus list of things to do, a OMC meeting about how this is going to be funded which wrongly could end up been the owners!!


----------



## lantus (10 Aug 2017)

Cervelo said:


> To add to Iantus list of things to do, a OMC meeting about how this is going to be funded which wrongly could end up been the owners!!



All omc costs are bourne by the owners. In this case you need to weigh no buildings insurance which gives your property zero value and makes it impossible to sell as well as being very risky in terms of any loss.

Imagine if the owners have to fund a mortgage for a property that doesn't exist anymore and any new mortgage or rent on another property to live in! Pretty scary stuff.

The cost to rectify this by comparison is manageable and much smaller.


----------



## Seagull (10 Aug 2017)

Given that it's an illegal addition to the building, does the builder have any right to even access it? Did the builder keep any other units in the development? 

What's the minimum that's needed to have the insurance reinstated? Would removing access to this apartment be enough, or does it need to be completely removed?


----------



## lantus (10 Aug 2017)

Seagull said:


> Given that it's an illegal addition to the building, does the builder have any right to even access it? Did the builder keep any other units in the development?
> 
> What's the minimum that's needed to have the insurance reinstated? Would removing access to this apartment be enough, or does it need to be completely removed?



Possibly has no right of access if it's a loft space.

Good thought re the minute to satisfy the insurers if all power and water are removed (plus sinks and wcs and primary kitchen fittings) and the space is no longer habitable, door is sealed shut then might be enough. Insurers are pedantic though so it will really need a very considered approach by the insurer. Again a lot of work involved in negotiating this if it's an option.


----------



## Marcia (11 Aug 2017)

Thanks for all your comments - I feel a bit overwhelmed!  The management company have a solicitor working on their behalf and they know it's really serious. I think the original builder went bankrupt and now the illegal apartment is owned by a receiver who is seemingly related to the builder, although I'm not totally sure about this. I'm just worried that the residents will be asked to move out until it's resolved. Strangely my next door


----------



## lantus (11 Aug 2017)

It is very unlikely anyone will be asked to move out. Having no insurance won't prompt such an action.

The receiver may be a slight issue. On the one side they are very hard to work with and operate outside the boundaries of normal legal practices.

On the other side they will have no real emotional interest in this unit and won't be able to sell it anyway if there is no insurance.

In that sense you have the advantage as their primary purpose cannot be concluded.

Please keep us updated on the progress of this as it would be good to know what the outcome was, thanks.


----------



## Marcia (11 Aug 2017)

I will


----------



## Marcia (12 Sep 2017)

Latest is the insurance runs out at the end of the month and they couldn't get insurance with any company.  At the last minute the current insurance company agreed, probably reluctantly, to insure the building for a few more weeks, just until further developments, probably an injunction or something happens.  It's extremely serious and we may have to vacate the building until it's sorted.


----------



## Seagull (12 Sep 2017)

Is there still someone living in the apartment?

I'm presuming your management company have been in contact with the planning office. Do you know what the advice was from them?


----------



## Marcia (12 Sep 2017)

There are actually two apartments involved and both occupied, illegally it would appear.
I don't know about the Planning office but they know the apartments shouldn't have been built and shouldn't be occupied.  The solicitor is dealing with it.


----------



## cremeegg (12 Sep 2017)

SirMille said:


> Have the council knock it over or board it up?
> 
> No planning permission!, what do the councils actually do?



Maybe you weren't aware but this is an Irish website. While Irish councils do certain things, one of the things they do not do is put people out on the streets.




Marcia said:


> the original builder went bankrupt and now the illegal apartment is owned by a receiver who is seemingly related to the builder,



See, Irish website.


----------



## Marcia (12 Sep 2017)

No the council wont put us out on the street, but if the building is not insured we legally cannot stay there.


----------



## cremeegg (12 Sep 2017)

Marcia said:


> No the council wont put us out on the street,



I was thinking of the people living in the unapproved apartment(s)



Marcia said:


> but if the building is not insured we legally cannot stay there.



There is no legal requirement, as far as I know, to have any form of house or buildings insurance.


----------



## Marcia (12 Sep 2017)

I don't know, all I know is I couldn't get my mortgage without proving that the building was insured.  If the building is not insured we will have to notify our lenders and may have to vacate the building.  Anyway, the solicitor is sending the occupants of the illegal apartments one more letter asking them to leave and if they don't, an injunction will have to be served on them, which apparently costs a huge amount.


----------



## cremeegg (12 Sep 2017)

Marcia said:


> I don't know, all I know is I couldn't get my mortgage without proving that the building was insured.  If the building is not insured we will have to notify our lenders and may have to vacate the building.  Anyway, the solicitor is sending the occupants of the illegal apartments one more letter asking them to leave and if they don't, an injunction will have to be served on them, which apparently costs a huge amount.



Why would you have to vacate the building. I cannot see any connection between having no insurance and living in the building or not.

Many homes in Ireland have no insurance for various reasons.

Having insurance is a pre-condition of getting a mortgage, generally if you do not then keep up the insurance the mortgage company can take out insurance on your behalf and charge you for that. There is no question of the mortgage company forcing your out of your home.

This is a difficult situation, but thinking that you will have to leave your home is a complete over reaction.


----------



## Seagull (13 Sep 2017)

Marcia said:


> Anyway, the solicitor is sending the occupants of the illegal apartments one more letter asking them to leave and if they don't, an injunction will have to be served on them, which apparently costs a huge amount.


I think it's the receiver you need to deal with. There should at least be some money there to go after for legal fees if this winds up in court.


----------



## cremeegg (13 Sep 2017)

Marcia said:


> the solicitor is sending the occupants of the illegal apartments one more letter asking them to leave and if they don't, an injunction will have to be served on them



Well you can't serve an injunction yourself, that is something only a court can do. 

From the facts outlined, I cannot see any basis for a court to grant an injunction against the occupants. Certainly, the fact that an apartment was built without planning permission is unlikely on its own to be an adequate basis for an injunction against the tenants to move out.


----------



## Marcia (13 Sep 2017)

I didn't say we would definitely be asked to vacate the building.  There are two illegal apartments in the building which never had planning permission but which the original builder, who owns them, has been renting out for years.  The insurance company obviously found out at some point and at first would only agree to insure the building less the two apartments but now they wont insure the building at all.  If the building isn't insured we are obliged to notify our lenders of the situation.  I don't know what their reaction will be but I imagine they wont be too happy.  First of all, if there was a fire (or flood) in the building, we wont be insured.  Secondly a fire (or flood) could start in the illegal apartments by occupants who shouldn't be there in the first place, and we wont be insured.  If our homes are destroyed we wouldn't be insured - while moving out is probably a last resort, it is a possibility, albeit a remote one.  In the meantime, they are taking legal advice and it looks like they will attempt to get an injunction.


----------



## xoxoxo (14 Sep 2017)

Who will pay the solicitors fee Marcia? Hope everything is resolved quickly for you.


----------



## Monbretia (14 Sep 2017)

Moving out is neither here nor there, if there is no insurance and something happens then you are still liable for the mortgage whether you are living there or not so may as well stay there as trying to pay rent elsewhere and a mortgage.

The lender won't be happy but ultimately the risk is yours as you are the one that would have to foot the bill if there is no insurance and something happens.

I hope you get it sorted but the lender is not your biggest issue, insurance was a condition of your mortgage as it is all mortgages but your lender is unlikely to do anything if their is now no insurance, what can they do?  They are not going to call in the loan because of it, once you keep paying the repayments nothing will happen with the lender.


----------



## lantus (16 Sep 2017)

Firstly you will not have to move out when the insurance lapses. Don't even worry about it because no one will come to your door.

I wouldn't even bother telling your lender.

Have your omc held a meeting to discuss?


----------



## Zauli26 (14 Mar 2018)

Hi,

I was curious to know how this story ended.

Also one thing that I don't have clear reading the post (and other posts) is why having or not the insurance changes things: let's say something happens and you need to file a claim, wouldn't the insurance company send someone to assess the situation and use that as an excuse to not pay?

Maybe I'm wrong and I'd like to know your opinion.


----------

