King12345 - Appreciate your advice and would have followed it, BUT, the same Council took me to Court and lost when they tried to evict me back in 2005. Even after that they held that the Enforcement Notice is still valid. It was only after the same Council actually granted permission for another plot on the same land without holiday use only conditions, AND accepted applications from others on the same land to lift the holiday use only condition (as to enforce now would be outside the time limit allowed), I thought I should try again. Especially after having discovered that the Enforcement Notice on my property was issued out of the time limit, under the same rule as was accepted for other properties here, I asked about getting mine removed so that I could similarly apply. It was then that they told me that even if it was removed, I would have to wait another 10 years from the date it was removed - can't be right, can it?

Hello All, I reside in a property which has an old Enforcement Notice from 1996 for breach of planning conditions against it. Council are NOT taking action against me at the moment, but the threat is always there in the back of my mind. After considerable research I think I have discovered that it was invalid as being "Out of Time" at date of issue. This view is upheld by recent decisions Council have made for other properties here on the same site where the occupants were contravening the same planning condition, but Council accepted that it was too late to Enforce against them and granted "Certificate of Lawful Use" for residential occupation. My problem is that Council say that even if I get the old Enforcement Notice removed, I will have to wait 10 years from the date it was removed in order for it not be used as reason for automatic refusal of an application for a "Certificate of Lawful Use for Existing Development". Can anyone advise. I would have thought that once an Enforcement Notice has been removed as "Invalid at Date of Issue", it should be as if it never existed and cannot therefore be used as reason to refuse anything.

Thanks again everyone! I have not checked with any CRA but did take another look at the correspondence received from Baker Tilley. No where does it describe NatWest as being "their client". They just refer to them as "the bank". Nowhere does it actually say that they WILL take further action if I don't agree to increase my payments. I have written to them again asking them to confirm that they own the debt and pointing out that if they don't I am not obliged to provide any financial information. We shall see if they respond or not. Many thanks, Wheels60

Hello and many thanks to all for the advice. I am very grateful. I will try to answer the queries your raised. The debt in question is with NatWest, it was a Bank loan and was dealt with by a different agent until recently. I had heard nothing from them for years. Then out of the blue comes this request from Baker Tilley asking for an updated I/E report. I have had similar requests from other agencies regarding other arrangements I have in place and have responded to them in like manner with no ill consequences, so I responded with an udated I/E report. That report shows that our only income is in the form of benefits, my wife and I are both in receipt of State Pension (Old Age Pension), and we both receive the new PIP as we are both disabed. My wife also gets a small amount in the form of Guaranteed Pension Credit. All of which proves our inability to increase the level of repayment we currently maintain. I have looked again at the correspondence I have received from Baker Tilley, and see that none of it actually says that they now own the debt, so you might be right and they may well just be trying to muscle in. It's interesting to note that they are not actully a Debt Collection Agency but just Accountants and Auditors. Their correspondence is interesting and self contradictory. The first letter asks for an up to date I/E which I sent. Their second letter says it is obvious that I can't repay the debt so they will be taking a charge on the property. I replied to that saying that they were not in a position to change the terms of the agreement which was already in place etc, etc. Their third and last letter said that the matter was not up for debate and that they intended to proceed with Court Action, but also suggested that I increase my monthly payment to £150 per month. Given that their second letter said it was obvious I could not afford to pay more therefore they would take a charge on the property, that is daft. Given all the good advice that has been forthcoming from you all, I think my best course of action is to do nothing and just wait to see if anything further transpires. Many thanks to all. Wheels60

Back in 2008 I got into a debt problem. Thanks to great advice from this forum I came to an agrred repayment plan of just £1.00 per month with no interest or additional charges being added with several of my creditors. Recently one of the debts was taken over by a new company by the name of "Baker Tilly Creditor Services LLP". At their request I provided an up to date monthly budget sheet which proved that my circumstances have not changed. They responded that it was obvious that I could not afford to increase my level of repayments and said therefore they would take a charge against my property so that the debt would then be repayable in full if I ever sell or pass away. There was no mention of whether further interest or charges would be applied to the account. I answered that having just taken over the debt they were obliged to adhere to any agreement that was already in place and did not have the power to vary the terms and conditions. Their last letter to me said that the matter was not open to debate and that they intended to proceed with court action. Can they do this after the plan has been in place for around 8 years with no missed payments and no change in circumstance on my part?

My wife was previously in receipt of DLA with the higher rate of the mobility element, and had to apply for PIP. My wife has arthritis, particularly evident in the left knee, and has great difficulty walking any distance. We put on the application pack that she is unable to walk 20 Metres. What that means in reality is that she is unable to walk 20 metres without stopping to rest to relieve the pain. Anyway, we had to go to the Truro Assessment Centre in Cornwall for a "Face to Face" assessment. In order to qualify for the "Enhanced Rate" of the Mobility element under PIP, you have to claim and "prove" that the distance you are able to walk is less than 20 metres. But what exactly does that mean? We arrived at the Assessment Centre, and guess what - the car park is more than 20 metres from the entrance. So we parked on the road directly opposite the ramped entrance to the Assessment Centre - less than 20 metres, but unfortunately after crossing the road there is a high kerb which would have been difficult and dangerous for my wife to negotiate, so we traversed to an area where the kerb had a wheelchair ramped area to make it safer for her. This meant that the total distance she walked was in excess of 20 metres, but this was not achieved in one continuous uninterrupted journey, she was forced to stop and rest periodically along the way. At the assessment my wife was asked how far she had walked to get into the assessment centre, and she estimated that it could have been as much as 30 metres. What was not made clear and what was not asked is whether she had to stop at any point to rest. When we got the decision, in the comments on how they came to their decision, it said that my wife had admitted that she walked 30 metres to get into the assessment centre, and then was observed to have walked another 14 metres within the assessment centre, a total of some 44 metres in all. From this their ruling was that she could walk more than 20 metres, but less than 50 metres and thus under their scoring system was denied entitlement to the enhanced rate for mobility. Let's consider this carefully:- By their figures, she walked a total of 44 metres to get to the "Face to Face" assessment. She would of course have to walk another 44 metres to get back to the car - making a total of some 88 metres in all. Far more than the maximum of 50 metres which by their own admission would be beyond her capabilities. So how do they arrive at this conclusion? By deduction, the question should be "How far can you walk without being forced to stop to rest?", and not "How far can you walk in a given time period?" Let me expand on that to explain:- It may be that someone can only walk 10 metres without having to stop to rest, but they may be able to do that 100 times a day - a little extreme I know but you get the point! So by the Assessment Centre's rules, how far can that person walk - is it 10 metres or 10 X 100 = 1000 metres? It has to be by logic alone how far can a person walk in one uninterrupted journey without being forced to stop and rest because of fatigue or pain. We have appealed and contested the Assessment as this 20 metre rule makes all the difference between getting the standard rate and/or the higher rate of the mobility element. Be warned, if you have to go to an Assessment Centre, and you expect to receive the enhanced rate for mobility, take note of where you have to park and how far you had to walk to gain entry. I Cynical I may be, but is it a coincidence that the car park is more than 20 metres from the entrance at the Truro Assessment Centre for PIP in Cornwall?

Hi again TB and ericsbrother, thanks for your continued interest guys, Well it is a proper tarmacced road, although there is no surface water drainage and that regularly causes problems of large puddles and little rivers. The owner claims that if I dont pay the maintenance he has the right to stop me using it for access to my home even though I have "Right of Access" in my Deeds. I did argue that point, but the owner said the charge included maintenance of all the Leisure Ground as well. I argued that I don't and can't use any of that because I am severely disabled and a full time wheelchair user. He said that was not a relevant argument because the roads and leisure ground could be used for the benefit of any visitors I may get. The fact that all this is freely available at no charge to the general public was of no consequence as far as he was concerned. So what happens if I don't pay? I can't see how the landowner could enforce his threats, but in several cases the landowner has taken others to Court and the Court has ruled in his favour. He did take me to Court when I originally refused to pay, but it looked like he was going to win and in the end we went to Arbitration and came to a private agreement. Part of that Agreement was that I had to keep it confidential. So I can't reveal the details. All that I can say is that for me it was a better outcome than it has been for many others. Some of whom have even been forced to sell their properties to settle the arrears and Court costs. To address "ericsbrother's" point about the payment being proportional. This would be very difficult to establish. First, I have had sight of the landowners accounts. It seems he claims for everything including the kitchen sink. Over £1,000 for telephone bills. Four full time staff even though those are employed looking after another of his sites as well as this one. The other thing is that on this site there are approximately 300 proper brick and block built properties all constructed to a standard under Building Regulations as suited to "Full Time Residential Occupation" which are all freehold, and another 200+ Park Homes which stand on land the landowner still owns and are leashold so they pay ground rent as well as the maintenance charges. That is complicated enough, but in addition, the maintenance charges are not consistent. They vary. A good proportion of the owners of properties like mine (block built and suited to full time residential use) have formed an Association and signed a Covenant with the landowner. I am not a member of that Association for reason that one of the criteria for joining is that they will only accept members who have signed and will provide copy of the covenant - as my Agreement is different and "Confidential", I can't show it to them, so they refused my application to become a member.Those that have signed such covenant pay a lower amount. I think in the region of £350 per annum. Those that refuse to sign the covenant pay at least twice as much, and to further complicate matters, those that live closer to the entrance of the site pay a different (lower) amount again. I have no idea how much the Park Home owners on leased land pay, but I hear that it is substantially more than the members of the Bungalow Owners Association pay. Sort that lot out !!! It's all a mess innit?

Forgot to mention - yes right to access is in my deeds.

Hi again TB, It gets more complicated! Yes my property is "Landlocked" as all access roads to it are owned by a different landlord, we have a maintenance agreement with that landlord to pay maintenance for the roads and for other l"Leisure Ground" that he owns which we are allowed to use. Now the complicated bit. The roads are not gated and access is free to the public. That landlord also owns and leases a couple premises to businesses. There is a Shop, and a Pug and Restaurant here. Both these businesses are open for anyone to use, so members of the public enter the site regularly on a daily basis. That was one of the questions I raised at one point. How can a Landlord charge residents and property owners a maintenance charge for using the access roads, and yet at the same time allow the general public to use the self same access roads free of charge? The Landlord also provides a car park (for which part of our maintenance charge pays for it's upkeep) which the general public can use free of charge to enjoy the use of the shop, pub and restaurant, and the leisure ground including a fenced off dog walking area. None of it makes sense to me.

Hi again, It is complicated. But I would not be trespassing. I own my plot Freehold. The "Must be Left Vacant" condition was lifted twice. Once in 1989 under an Appeal, and again in 1991 at a Planning and Development Committee Meeting (this is one of the facts that Council are denying is true even though I have documentary proof) , so should not be a problem there. The access roads are owned by a different landowner, but there is no problem there as we have an agreement with that landowner to use the access roads and we pay a maintenance charge to him for that.

Hi TB, Lived here all year round for 14 years. Had a long fight with Local Council about mistakes they made over Planning issues and then tried to cover up. Basically what they did was not within the bounds of their authority to do, but they wont admit it and have tried to claim they are within their rights to impose new and more onerous conditions on the land without first getting the original Agreement cancelled or rescinded. They CLAIM they have rescinded it but they did not follow the correct procedure. First they have to get a "Deed of Release" signed by all interested parties (and that includes me) to lawfully rescind the original Agreement, and that was never done - so it still stands. Neither I nor the many other interested parties are likely to sign such a Deed which would then give Council the right to evict us would we? I think this thing you describe as "Prescriptive Right to Continue" is an American thing. I can't find anywhere anything that says it applies in UK. Please correct me if I am wrong. Many thanks. Wheels60

Hi ThedaBara, I have been living here 12 Months per annum for 14 years! (Apart from the odd holiday that is). This term "Prescriptive Right" is a new one on me. Where can I look that one up Hee Hee! If I find it, can I ask Council to withdraw any notices they hold as valid against my property regarding residential use? Problem is Council made mistakes by passing Planning Permission with unenforceable conditions, but they won't admit it and have tried to cover it up by claiming that they rescinded the previous Agreement which did not have the holiday use only condition. Trouble is, they didn't have the legal powers or authority to cancel it, but they won't admit that either and if you see the notes of the meeting they had, that was NOT the resolution that was passed - they just "Lifted" a condition on the original Agreement about a period when the properties could not be used for residential purposes. Then 2 days later falsely claimed that they had cancelled it altogether and began serving notices on lots of people for allegedly contravening the holiday use only conditions of the Planning Permission they claim is valid and in force and ignoring the fact that previous Agreement which DID allow residential use and HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED!

Hi ericsbrother, Thanks for that. I thought that the period in question was 10 years, not 6. But either way you are right, my Council seem to think that a very old Notice against my property is still valid and in force. There must be a way I can get them to officially withdraw it, then I can apply for a "Certificate of Lawful Development or Use" under the 10 year rule. Trouble is that because I have been classed under their policy of "Unreasonable Customer Behavior" they won't respond to ANY communications I send to them! I can but try I suppose. Where did you find this info about Notices becoming redundant and should be withdrawn? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Last year the LGO just said that the matter still under consideration by the Legal Department of the Local Council. I heard nothing further on the matter. The property was purchased Freehold from the previous private owners. The old US Airforce was based here in WWII and at that time I think it was known as HMS VULTURE. Does any of that help?

Hi and thanks for replying, Yes it is related but things have moved on a bit - quick precis:- 1971 Section 37 Agreement allowing residential permission 10 months of year. 50+ properties built with no "Holiday Use Only" or "Must be Left Vacant for 2 Months" restrictions. Just "Must not be used for Residential Purposes" for 2 months (January and February) each year. 1986 new Planing for bigger bungalows granted but now contained "Holiday Use Only" and "Must be Left Vacant for 2 Months" conditions. 1989 under Appeal the 2 month restriction on when properties could not be used for residential purposes was lifted. At that Appeal Council had asked that a "Holiday Use Only" condition be imposed. But the Inspector hearing the Appeal (D Hill), said that to impose a "Holiday Use Only" restriction would be a new and more onerous condition and he felt that this was not an option that was open to him, so he denied it. 1991 Planning Meeting. At this meeting the resolution passed was to lift the 2 month restriction (Again) when properties could not be used for residential purposes. BUT, Council claimed afterwards that they had rescinded the whole of the original Section 37 Agreement. They COULD NOT have done that - no "Deed of Release" - no authority to cancel or rescind. 2003 Council took action against me for contravening the "Holiday Use Only" Condition in the 1986 Planning Permission. They lost the case in Crown Court December 2005. But refused to accept Judge's decision, holding that the Order against my property was still valid and in force. But took no further action against me or anyone else for over 10 years. Current position is Council have admitted on the one hand that the Section 37 Agreement has , in their words, "not been formally discharged", , which means that it is still in force. On they other hand Council STILL claim that it was rescinded in 1991 at their Planning Meeting, and that's NOT TRUE! Following the 1991 Planning Meeting, Council evicted many families for non compliance with the "Holiday Use Only" Condition, but that stopped after I won my case in 2005, until recently that is. Earlier this year they tried to evict a neighbour of mine under the same pretext, but when that was challenged by citing the existence and continued validity of the Section 37 Agreement and the "Lifting" of restrictions in the 1991 Planning Meeting, Council withdrew the Notice. However, they refused to put the reasons in writing. All they did do was write a letter to the owner saying that:- "under investigation no breach was found. If no breach was found then that proves that Council admit that the"Holiday Use Only" and "Must be left Vacant" conditions of the 86 Planning Permission are unenforceable. However, in correspondence with myself and others, Council are still claiming that the 86 Planning Permission OVERRIDES the original Section 37 Agreement, and are still claiming that it was rescinded/cancelled in the 1991 Planning Meeting. We all know that it was not rescinded, but Council won't admit it. I have been informed (from reliable sources) once again that under Planning Law no Local Planning Authority can impose new and more onerous conditions unless the previous Agreement has been rescinded, which it has not. For that reason I would dearly love to find and quote that legislation to Council to prove that the new and more onerous conditions in the 1986 Planning Permission were never enforceable in the first place. I would be extremely grateful for any assistance anyone can offer in finding proof of this piece of legislation.