Council has different rules for private home owners than itself?!

[Emilymaitlisfangirl]

Afternoon everyone. I'm not sure whether this is better in property or legal, but think this is possibly technical.

I have owned my grade 2 (NO STAR) listed home since 2005. In 2010 i was served an enforcement notice because the previous owners changed timbers ash windows to upvc. I was going to change the windows anyway but not to timber which was very expensive. The council insisted upon single glazed, citing that in 1860 no one had double glazed so it was not in keeping. This means heat retention is crap and I've had to pay for secondary glazing (or pay in the form of bills). Also, The roof needed fixing. They made us buy very expensive tiles. This is now 2013 and 2018 respectively.

I have just discovered that the council owned properties on the street that are the same as mine have had double glazed windows installed and bog standard tiles. The premium I paid to keep aligned with council policy must be at least £15k.

I want to complain, but honestly I also want to be compensated, or fort he council to have to change everything they have done.

I had to take out loans for the extra I had to pay. I'm so upset.

Are there any thoughts on this?

Sell up. You must have known what owning a listed building entailed.

Thank you for your response.

I actually never expect unfair treatment or to live like it's 150 years ago. You'll note I did comply, I am now writing this because council tenants are treated better (warmer homes) and the council is able to make reasonable smart savings, and I wasn't.

Good to have your thoughts, though.

Are theirs listed? In a Conservation area?

Listed. These houses are literally next door to mine. I went over there and thought 'what? double glazing?'. I've got single glazed beautiful sash windows BEHIND secondary ugly glazing. My house looks great from the outside, the inside view is not so great!

I begged the council over the windows and the roof tiles. They banged on and on about the important of historical whatnot, and conservation and all sorts. I have reams of emails on the topic. THEY DID NOT BUDGE. Then a year or two later, they do the opposite. I've looked online. Policy has not changed.

I'd love a legal opinion if anyone has one?

It's not relevant what other property owners do or don't do.

What matters is that you always comply with the legislation governing the listed property that you own, or face the £££ consequences.

I agree, so I complied.

It absolutely does matter what the council does when they set the rules. That is why we all got so upset at the downing street parties over lockdown.

I wouldn't care if my private owners got away with it, I'd be glad for them. I care that the council have treated me differently. That's what discrimination is all about - caring whether one person is treated differently to another. I believe it matters. Does it matter in law? That is my question. I hope someone with an informed insight can give me an idea on this. I'd be very grateful, rather than being spoken to sternly about being the one who actually kept to the rules and never broke any.

Well its not discrimination for a start

Someone else ignoring the rules (if they indeed did) doesn't mean you can also ignore the rules, or the rules cease to exist.

If, (and it's a big if) the Council did break the rules, you can engage a solicitor and spend £££ proving that, and they may be asked to make any non compliant works compliant. This won't change the fact that you are required to ensure any works on your property comply with the listed buildings regulations.

By all means waste your money proving a point (or not), but it won't change the fact that you have to comply with the regulations on your listed property.

Sigh.........

I've never said i want to break the rules. I think they should be applied equally. What do you think about that?

Sigh.....

Yes indeed, sigh...!

You may, if you want to throw many tens of thousands of pounds at it, force the Council to remedy any non compliant work in the unlikely event it exists.

You won't be able to remove the need for you to comply with the legislation governing your property, nor get any reimbursement of the costs of you complying with the legislation governing your property.

I've answered my own question.

Wrong place to post.

Thank you for your responses.

Ahh sorry youve had a tough time of it girl. There's honestly nothing you can do, except change yours and cite theirs as your reason for doing so

It would be a risk but you could try?

You would get nowhere trying to get compensation, imo, I doubt planners even work with estate management, sorry xx

I would ask my local councillor(s) for their thoughts, and see what that throws up. If indeed all these properties owned by the council are listed as yours is, then I’d be asking them why have the council insisted on you doing work they have not also had to do?

Thank you for some considered thoughts.

I think I will speak to the councillors. Thank you!

If the council buildings are listed, they will have had to go through the same procedure you did and ask for permission. You should be able to find all the paperwork online to see whether they have in fact done this. If not, they will be in breach of the planning rules.

This is one of those cases where there are things you can do without spending money. They won't resolve your issue but may make the council think twice before doing the same again. Find out who is on the planning committee and email them asking for an explanation. Put in a formal complaint. Put in a freedom on information request for all the documents and correspondence around the upgrades. Put in a Subject Access Request for all correspondence regarding your requests - this may turn up interesting things. I completely understand why you are pissed off.

If they are listed then you can report them to the listed buildings team at the council. Councils are loads of different departments which don't talk to each other so the enforcement department will be totally seperately from the section who deal with council housing. They can then force them to reinstate the wooden single glazed windowa like they did for you.

OP, you are victim to the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ rule that applies to private homeowners vs council owners. It’s the same in private rentals vs social housing. Different rules apply for no other reason than saving money.

They do have different rules. I remember when I lived in a conservation area and I saw someone butchering the beautiful oak next door, I called the council saying it couldn't be legal as I had not received the consultation letter and they answered that they owned that property and therefore were not required to consult before attacking trees, like everyone else had to.

Oooo, yes, I can see that. very clearly, I hadn't thought about the rental sector, but you are right.

So interesting.

I really wouldn't mind if the impact were nil or negligible. In that case, if a protected tree was uprooting the neighbouring property so the council protected their own housing stock, but a similar tree was doing the same to your property and they just said 'get better insurance' as I have read about some councils doing when trees are clearly causing subsidence, I'd be hopping mad! Bet that has happened somewhere, though.

I'm so relieved some people understand me. Thank you!!!

This isn't true. Councils have to follow the same rules as everyone else when it comes to listed buildings. OP, you could check this in 5 minutes by looking on the website and seeing what permission has been granted.

You can go online, to your council's planning register, and see if they had listed building consent for the works. If not, you can report a breach if that's what you want to do.