Has anybody had their build measured on completion?

[Temp]

It's tricky. The CIL exemption must be claimed using the right sequence of forms before development work starts on site. Given the sums involved its unwise to do any work before you have got the exemption in place.

[oldkettle]

55 minutes ago, Temp said:

It's tricky. The CIL exemption must be claimed using the right sequence of forms before development work starts on site. Given the sums involved its unwise to do any work before you have got the exemption in place.

 

I know and I agree. But It is still completely unjust taking into account the purpose of the levy and the reality of what the owner did: there were no new connections to services, this is just a replacement dwelling. Creating an overly complicated process just to give councils a chance like this one was wrong and the fact that the law was amended in 2019 means it was recognised. If only they did the right thing and made the retrospective change getting those of us who got planning before off the hook. 

[Adsibob]

The unfortunate consequences of the judgment in this case was an unintended CIL liability for over £118,000. Ouch!

i hope he appeals.

[oldkettle]

22 hours ago, Adsibob said:

The unfortunate consequences of the judgment in this case was an unintended CIL liability for over £118,000. Ouch!

i hope he appeals.

 

I was actually thinking whether there was a way to crowd-fund the appeal: quite a few people can benefit if it is successful. 

[Temp]

On 01/08/2021 at 01:54, Adsibob said:

The unfortunate consequences of the judgment in this case was an unintended CIL liability for over £118,000. Ouch!

i hope he appeals.

 

That was from the High Court so think that might be end of the road.  

[Temp]

Apparently there is a Supreme Court but here it says...

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/role-of-the-supreme-court.html

 

The Supreme Court hears appeals from the following courts in each jurisdiction:

 

England and Wales

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division

(in some limited cases) the High Court

 

Elsewhere it says

 

An appeal to The Supreme Court from any order or judgment of the Court of Appeal in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland may only be brought with the permission of the Court of Appeal or of The Supreme Court.

 

[Temp]

My wife once told me that if you have help to fund a court case the people paying may also be liable for the other parties costs if you loose. Not sure if that's right but might be best to make any donations anonymous?

Edited August 2, 2021 by Temp

[Adsibob]

5 hours ago, Temp said:

 

That was from the High Court so think that might be end of the road.  

As long as you are in time, you can always appeal. "Appeal" is a two stage process: First you need permission to appeal. Usually, the losing side makes an application for permission to appeal straight away, at the hearing where they lost, to the judge or tribunal which rendered the decision against them. Nine times out of ten, the judge will say "no" and one then needs to seek permission to appeal from the appellate court. Very occasionally, a Judge gives permission to appeal his or her own judgement. if that happens, it's almost always because the Judge thinks he/she has applied the law correctly but considers the law is in need of revision/updating.

If you can't get permission to appeal from the judge/tribunal who gave the decision, then one has to go to the appellate court and ask that court for permission to appeal. That is basically a paper exercise that reviews the merits of the appeal on the papers and either gives you permission to go ahead and have an appeal hearing or basically stops the appeal there and then, effectively because it thinks it's hopeless. I would imagine this case raises sufficiently serious issues of fairness and important issues of law that mean getting permission to appeal should be possible. Whether it goes further than that and actually succeeds at appeal I could not say.

In England we have two appellate courts : the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. In Scotland there are also two, but the first one isn't called the Court of Appeal, but the Inner House of the Court of Session (as opposed to the Outer House of the Court of Session).

So usually, from a High Court decision one could appeal to the Court of Appeal, and if still not satisfied, appeal again to the Supreme Court. That is extremely rare though. Most appeals don't go all the way to the Supreme Court. 

Also, the worst thing about appeals is they take ages. Not enough appellate judges! Ministry of Justice has been cutting courts and budgets left, right and centre.

[Adsibob]

5 hours ago, Temp said:

My wife once told me that if you have help to fund a court case the people paying may also be liable for the other parties costs if you loose. Not sure if that's right but might be best to make any donations anonymous?

That is correct. Section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 46.2 gives the Court the power to make third party costs orders against litigation funders.

[Adsibob]

17 hours ago, oldkettle said:

 

I was actually thinking whether there was a way to crowd-fund the appeal: quite a few people can benefit if it is successful. 

Definitely feasible. Litigation can be crowdfunded. A the third party costs order i mentioned in my previous post is pretty rare. Normally only used where a funder has funded a claim that has no prospects or allowed it to carry on when it was obvious it was bound to fail. For an example of when a litigation funder might be held liable to pay costs, see Money v Davey https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2019/997.html

In that case the funder tried to argue that its liability should be limited to no more than the amount it had funded (known as the Arkin cap). The judge clarified that the Arkin cap is just a guide and although courts should take it into account, they can depart from it. Here circumstances were so bad that it merited ordering the funder to pay a costs order in excess of the amount it had funded. Again, extremely rare.

[oldkettle]

2 hours ago, Adsibob said:

Definitely feasible. Litigation can be crowdfunded. A the third party costs order i mentioned in my previous post is pretty rare. Normally only used where a funder has funded a claim that has no prospects or allowed it to carry on when it was obvious it was bound to fail. For an example of when a litigation funder might be held liable to pay costs, see Money v Davey https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2019/997.html

In that case the funder tried to argue that its liability should be limited to no more than the amount it had funded (known as the Arkin cap). The judge clarified that the Arkin cap is just a guide and although courts should take it into account, they can depart from it. Here circumstances were so bad that it merited ordering the funder to pay a costs order in excess of the amount it had funded. Again, extremely rare.

 

Well, this is all good when the "funder" is say a friend or a millionaire who has a way to enquire whether there are prospects. With crowd-funding people sending their £20 or £50 can't possibly know, this is for the person who goes to court and his solicitors to decide (whether to take money and continue).

[Adsibob]

33 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

 

Well, this is all good when the "funder" is say a friend or a millionaire who has a way to enquire whether there are prospects. With crowd-funding people sending their £20 or £50 can't possibly know, this is for the person who goes to court and his solicitors to decide (whether to take money and continue).

Which is why I think such an order being made against a crowdfunding campaign is all the more unlikely. Go ahead and donate, I say! If somebody posts the crowdfunding page, I will put in £20. 

[DragsterDriver]

I did ask somebody about section 73 and CIL- they said “if the footprint of the building stays the same its not a problem”.

 

this was free ‘pub’ advice mind...

[Omnibuswoman]

7 minutes ago, DragsterDriver said:

I did ask somebody about section 73 and CIL- they said “if the footprint of the building stays the same its not a problem”.

 

this was free ‘pub’ advice mind...

 

This was the advice I had in writing from my local planning authority - as long as our s73 application doesn't enlarge the building, then £0 CIL will apply (the planning permission we are seeking to amend was granted prior to CIL).

[DragsterDriver]

10 hours ago, Omnibuswoman said:

 

This was the advice I had in writing from my local planning authority - as long as our s73 application doesn't enlarge the building, then £0 CIL will apply (the planning permission we are seeking to amend was granted prior to CIL).

sounds like good news!

[Omnibuswoman]

35 minutes ago, DragsterDriver said:

sounds like good news!

I hope it’s correct!! although having it in writing means I could rely on it if they were wrong. 
 

i read the judgement carefully just in case, and we are definitely not going to do anything towards building the house until the s73 application has gone through, and we’re in a position to apply for CIL exemption, even if the CIL is £0. Better safe than sorry!

[Haylingbilly]

On 02/08/2021 at 21:02, Omnibuswoman said:

 

This was the advice I had in writing from my local planning authority - as long as our s73 application doesn't enlarge the building, then £0 CIL will apply (the planning permission we are seeking to amend was granted prior to CIL).

The council told me that a S73 on a pre CIL consent, still triggers a CIL liability so I would be careful with this one

[Ferdinand]

On 17/07/2021 at 11:25, DragsterDriver said:

That’s really interesting! As a youngster I worked on jobs where the digger driver got his lines wrong ? it occurred to me I’ve never heard of a new build being checked  

 

My dad once made them move a wall that was 18" too close to the boundary as the house design did not fit on the claimed size of plot.

 

If he had not caught it at foundation stage it would have got restrospecive permission.

[Ferdinand]

On 02/08/2021 at 12:02, Temp said:

Apparently there is a Supreme Court but here it says...

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/role-of-the-supreme-court.html

 

 

 

 

Elsewhere it says

 

 

 

 

 

If  you get into the Appeal Court you are up for 100s of k of expenses.

 

It' a problem for LLs because all the horribly drafted legislation has to be sorted out by years of Court actions in precedent setting Courts.

 

It took years and years to sort out Deposit Protection schemes. 

[Ferdinand]

On 02/08/2021 at 12:04, Temp said:

My wife once told me that if you have help to fund a court case the people paying may also be liable for the other parties costs if you loose. Not sure if that's right but might be best to make any donations anonymous?

 

They could try a Pro Bono barrister plus crowd funding for the rest.

 

The best known is the Good Law project, and Jolyon Maugham. But they are losing a few recently, and tend to like politics.

 

(And Jolyon just lost his own Planning Appeal.)