foxandrew8
New Member
- Messages
- 2
Hi,
I am currently in the process of buying a house. There is a large shed/workshop on the site which does not comply with planning permission as granted in 2003 - interestingly, it was constructed prior to 2003 with no planning permission, but retention was granted in 2003 when an extension to the house was being applied for/built. However, the shed was subsequently increased in size (in 2010) so no longer complies with the granted permission. My solicitor has advised me that as the development has been in existence for more than seven years it is immune from prosecution. I understand that this does not make it legal and that the same issue will arise should I choose to sell in the future.
My solicitor has informed our bank (PTSB) that he wishes to qualify the title in this regard - they raised two queries in response (what our intended usage of the building is and whether the vendors have ever had an enforcement notice served by the council in respect of it). These queries were answered two weeks ago and we are awaiting their decision on whether to accept the qualification on title. The last update I have is that the underwriter and (bank's) valuer are reviewing the case and they should have an answer "after the bank holiday weekend".
Once my solicitor has received confirmation from PTSB about the qualification, we are otherwise ready to sign our side of the contract. Vendor is very much ready too and awaiting us to sign. We are hoping to close by the end of June. Ourselves, our vendor, and our vendor's vendor (the chain goes no further than that) are all in agreement about the closing date we are aiming for and as far as we are aware there is no other issue that will prevent that from happening.
My question is - does anyone know how likely (or not) PTSB are to agree with the qualification on title? My solicitor initially gave me the impression that there wouldn't be any problem here, but now I am not so sure. I am aware that it is ultimately the vendor's issue, but I am really hoping that we can progress as planned and get closed by the end of this month. If PTSB don't agree to the qualification, I believe our only other option is to have the vendors secure retention permission before we proceed. Obviously this would cause a huge delay. I would be more than happy to agree to applying for retention myself after we take ownership (in fact, I would happily demolish the shed if needs be as I do not have a pressing want/need for it). Does anyone have any idea if this would be an option? My solicitor is great, but he doesn't like discussing "ifs, buts, and maybes" - as far as he is concerned the qualification should be agreed to by the bank and if for some reason it is not, we will discuss potential next steps at that stage.
Apologies for the slightly rambling post. Any input would be greatly appreciated!
I am currently in the process of buying a house. There is a large shed/workshop on the site which does not comply with planning permission as granted in 2003 - interestingly, it was constructed prior to 2003 with no planning permission, but retention was granted in 2003 when an extension to the house was being applied for/built. However, the shed was subsequently increased in size (in 2010) so no longer complies with the granted permission. My solicitor has advised me that as the development has been in existence for more than seven years it is immune from prosecution. I understand that this does not make it legal and that the same issue will arise should I choose to sell in the future.
My solicitor has informed our bank (PTSB) that he wishes to qualify the title in this regard - they raised two queries in response (what our intended usage of the building is and whether the vendors have ever had an enforcement notice served by the council in respect of it). These queries were answered two weeks ago and we are awaiting their decision on whether to accept the qualification on title. The last update I have is that the underwriter and (bank's) valuer are reviewing the case and they should have an answer "after the bank holiday weekend".
Once my solicitor has received confirmation from PTSB about the qualification, we are otherwise ready to sign our side of the contract. Vendor is very much ready too and awaiting us to sign. We are hoping to close by the end of June. Ourselves, our vendor, and our vendor's vendor (the chain goes no further than that) are all in agreement about the closing date we are aiming for and as far as we are aware there is no other issue that will prevent that from happening.
My question is - does anyone know how likely (or not) PTSB are to agree with the qualification on title? My solicitor initially gave me the impression that there wouldn't be any problem here, but now I am not so sure. I am aware that it is ultimately the vendor's issue, but I am really hoping that we can progress as planned and get closed by the end of this month. If PTSB don't agree to the qualification, I believe our only other option is to have the vendors secure retention permission before we proceed. Obviously this would cause a huge delay. I would be more than happy to agree to applying for retention myself after we take ownership (in fact, I would happily demolish the shed if needs be as I do not have a pressing want/need for it). Does anyone have any idea if this would be an option? My solicitor is great, but he doesn't like discussing "ifs, buts, and maybes" - as far as he is concerned the qualification should be agreed to by the bank and if for some reason it is not, we will discuss potential next steps at that stage.
Apologies for the slightly rambling post. Any input would be greatly appreciated!