Threats of Possession notice to force me to remove tree/play house

26/10/2009 10:30 am

I'm afraid if you've erected a structure without planning permission that the council deems would require it, unless you can apply for retrospective planning consent, you'll have to take it down or potentially be the subject of enforcement action from the council.
I can't offer a knowledgeable opinion about the HA actions, although I can understand how even if your treehouse is perfectly safe it would set a dangerous precedent for the rest of their properties if they allowed people to build things in their gardens without knowing about them first.

27/10/2009 12:00 pm

I understand the council are right, and Im willing to go down the route of obtaining planning permission but its the Housing association, that are giving me the trouble, I accept your point that they would worry that lots of people might start building structures in their garden but if they were proved to be safe and had planning permission or no-one objected, what would be the problem?
I am applying for planning permission and my neighbours are not bothered by the tree house, only the Housing association are bothered and it is them who are claiming I am causing nuisance to others and so breeching my tenancy, which isnt correct.
Further more they tryed to add rent arrears as another dirty trick as a ground for possession also despite the fact we had a written agreement that I would pay these back at a set amount each week.

27/10/2009 12:19 pm

"rebecca french Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:00 GMT ....

Further more they tryed to add rent arrears as another dirty trick as a ground for possession also despite the fact we had a written agreement that I would pay these back at a set amount each week..."

It is the old trick from social landlords, when they do not like a tenant, to start harassing them over rent arrears to scare them off... that's why ground8 should be abolished.

27/10/2009 12:45 pm

Kass - it can only be an old trick IF the tenants is in arrears cant it? And if someone owes you money do you have to trick it out of them?

Kass - you say often enough you are not a housing professional so is it wise to give advice on whether the HA will allow this structure to remain in situ?

As to why the HA may be against it and refuse and insist you take the tree house down. When you leave the property and say this is in 10 years time when your dauhter no longer needs or uses a tree house (or even sooner), then if you leave it at the property the landlord is liable for its safety. It would likely have no option but to dismantle it at a cost to themselves as they couldnt be guaranteed it was safe.

Hence to avoid that cost to them they can ask you to dismantle it. Personally I hope they dont but there are legitimate reasons why they might ask you to dismantle it.

27/10/2009 1:38 pm

Yes I have noticed and I make my view clear that I want her to keep it. That doesnt detract from my points which were (a) you state clearly that you dont work in housing so Rebecca should know that and (b) consider your views in that light.

I just gave a possible scenario as to why it may not be a smooth a process as you advised. Why anyone should have a problem with that I dont know?

27/10/2009 4:03 pm

I did say in my original letter to the H/A that should I ever move out or treehouse becomes dangerous or a problem I would remove it, I would be willing to sign something saying so.
They promised to hold off solicitors action as they said I had the right to complain, so I did and their response to my complaint is the latest solicitors letter saying remove the treehouse by 6th nov or we will use the possession order inclosed in this letter!
I dont call that a fair complaint system!
The only people the treehouse bothers is them, all the other neighbours signed my petition for it to remain.
I should havr asked permission but it was a misunderstanding as I didnt realise I needed to as I wasnt making alterations to the house, as soon a s I realised I did apologise and ask their permission and enclosed the petition to prove others didnt mind. I feel they are acted unreasonably, its not an eye saw and is bearly visable to all but immediate neighbours whom it doesnt overlook.

28/10/2009 11:34 am

If you have not done so already you should go to a housing lawyer you trust or CAB... If the HA has decided for whatever reason however unreasonable it seems to you,that you must remove the tree-house, you should not run the risk of losing your home... It might help your case if you could conduct a research and find out as many as you can examples where the HA might have given permission to other tenants to build similar structures but not to you, and you could prove discrimination if that is the case... You can do this also after you have removed your tree-house, so if you can prove it you could ask for the tree-house to be rebuilt at the HA expenses.

29/10/2009 10:16 am

As practitioner, it does frustrate me when people say 'I didn't know I had to ask permission'. I do understand that new tenants can be so desperate for keys that they'll take a tenancy on any terms offered but that doesn't stop them reading their tenancy agreement or handbook about what they can and can't do? To prevent this very situation, wouldn't a quick phone call to check first have been worth the effort? I agree it is your home, but it's not your property. You won't be there forever and if your children succeed to your home, will they be prepared to foot the bill for its removal? Planning permission aside, if, as you say, the structure is not overlooking or causing a problem then common sense and reasonableness could come into play in letting it stay as long as the right agreements were in place for its maintenance and removal at end of tenancy.
As for the rent arrears question, I'm assuming if they've started steps for repossession, then a revised Notice Seeking Possession will include ALL current grounds for possession as best practice suggests there should only be one live NSP - so if you had already received an NSP for rent arrears then a new one for breach of tenancy (improvements without permission) could prejudice the earlier one. Bringing them all together on one just continues their right to commence action on any of the grounds covered if required.
Another ominous sign here is that there appears to have been no face to face discussion - always in my book a sure fire way to create a stand-off.
In any event now that you have applied for retrospective planning permission, the HAs actions might be immaterial as the Local Authority Planning Enforcement team might seek its removal if your application is unsuccessful.

29/10/2009 1:40 pm

Do keep in mind that if your landlord did give permission and god forbid your child fell out and was seriously injured, there may be a substantial liabilities claim against the landlord. We had this with gym equipment in a shared cellar - shared between residents, all responsible professional adults, all signed an offered contract to clean, maintain and keep it safe. Sorry, we'd still be liable if anything went wrong and someone got injured, had to turn it down and make them get rid of it. They weren't happy but what can you do?.

30/10/2009 12:49 pm

Ged Quayle Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:40 GMT....

this is very valuable to know for tenants, like me, with a private garden... so from what you say I am right to assume that for any structure erected in a garden, whether authorised or not by the landlord, and whether or not included in the tenancy agreement, if something untoward happens because of them, there responsible is the landlord and not the tenant?