Thursday, 15 September 2011

Buying a Council House in Hartlepool can be Hazardous and Costly

Tuesday 13th September 2011.

I wish to Thank once again  my Member of Parliament, Iain Wright M.P. for Hartlepool, who has informed me, to-day,  that  he has received a letter of acknowledgement from the  Customer Service office  of Land Registry, in respect of my Serious Allegation of  Misfeasance in Public Office by Officers employed in Land Registry, Durham,
******
Who state they will give a full response as soon as possible,
Does this mean that  a possible Internal Investigation will be  launched at last, into my allegations,  that I was defrauded of a part of our legally purchased Land and Property, first “ Registered” with Land Registry on 29th March 1984 on Land Title Deeds CE 74844.”Absolute”.  Watch this space !
******
In the Interest of  fair play,  and to keep  my M.P. Iain Wright up to speed on my Complaints  regarding  Land Registry and Hartlepool Borough Council,
******
(they have both played a disgraceful part in this sordid affair ) and I have Documentary Evidence to prove it.
******
 I think a little background information is required to enable everyone else  interested, and  any one who purchases a ex-Council House has in my case, or property by a “Mortgage”  should be particularly vigilant and know what you should guard against in dealing with Land Registry.  And to form an opinion on this on- going dispute with both Hartlepool Borough Council, in particular the Planning Department and Land Registry, Durham. “Remember” It could happen to you,
******
 “Everything is Funny as long as it is happening to somebody else,” (Will Rogers)
******
I wish to make it clear from the start that this Peaceable Protest  is“NOT”  I repeat “NOT” a planning application dispute as such, it is, and always was,
a Protest against the Granting of a Controversial Retrospective Planning application H/2009/0568,  by Richard Trow, Planning Officer  and Mr Reece, Development Control Manager, of Hartlepool Council,  who decided  to “Grant” this particular controversial application, without any input or discussion with the Elected Councillors of the Planning Committee , and in the full knowledge that the Controversial Retrospective  application  was invalid,  in that  it contained Fraudulent Documents, in the form  of Ownership  Certificates “A” and “B”.  claiming  Ownership of Land and Property  “NOT” in their Legal Land Title. DU 37533.These ownership certificates are part of the standard application form.
******
1 September 2010
Dear Sir,
Thanks for your enquiry to the Department for Communities and Local Government. The answers to your questions are:

Ownership certificates
50. Under section 65(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, read in conjunction with Article 7 of the GDPO, the local planning authority “must not” entertain an application for planning permission unless the relevant certificates concerning the ownership of the application site have been completed. All applications for planning permission must therefore include the appropriate certificate of ownership. An ownership certificate A, B, C or D must be completed stating the ownership of the property. For this purpose an ‘owner’ is anyone with a freehold interest, or leasehold interest the unexpired term of which is not less than seven years. Ownership certificates must also be completed for applications for listed building consent, and conservation area consent for demolition.
******
David Cameron (Prime Minister; Witney, Conservative) Questions September 7 th 2011,

What I would say is that it is a basic issue of fairness: everyone in this country has to obey the law, including the law about planning permission Where this has been done without permission it is an illegal development
******
Richard Trow Planning Case Officer for Hartlepool Borough Council, was  I believe , the  draughtsman, who first  drew-up  the  drawing for the Planning application, later changed to a  Retrospective Application, H/2009/0568,
( NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE THEN ) after it was discovered
that the kitchen extension previously erected  had been built without Planning Permission, and was  physically attached (Tied-In)  to  our  detached outside single skin NON-LOAD BEARING Rear Wall of the  Wash-House, Completely Blocking off the Ventilation Ducts  and preventing
 the uninterrupted free flow of any build up of Toxic Gasses to the outside atmosphere, leaving a possible very dangerous situation of Fire or Explosion., if anyone attempted to ignite the internal Gas Boiler. ( I  later  had the Gas supply disconnected )  it had also  caused structural damage to our Wash -House building.


******
My neighbours asked if  they  could have a meeting to discuss the problems and would we agree to Produce our Land Title Deeds CE74844, for Inspection and Compare them with their Land Title Deeds DU 37533,
******
in the interest of good neighbours we agreed, to a meeting to take place in our home, It very soon become apparent  after both Title Deeds had been thoroughly examined by all parties, that the Detached Wash-House  in dispute was in our Land Title CE74844 “Absolute” and  we were the undisputed  legal owners, and had been since it had been  first “Registered” at Land Registry, on  29th March, 1984.
******
 The neighbours  Title Deeds  DU37533,  were examined , inspected and compared by all present , they  showed “NO” details that could be construed  as ownership of any Land or Property in  this dispute.
 Nor could they produce any other documentation to challenge our ownership.
******
Nothing ,  not one single Document,  NO” pre-purchase  “Sale of Council House” Property Search and Survey  by  B.R. Davies, B .S .c. C. Eng. M.I.C.E.  Senior Engineer and Chief Surveyor of Hartlepool Borough Council , the (Seller)  to compare to ours below. ( after all is said and done, ) B.R. Davies, B .S .c. C. Eng. M.I.C.E.  Senior Engineer and Chief Surveyor of Hartlepool Borough Council, held the same office of Chief Surveyor,  in 1972, the Time of the sale  of Council Property, DU 37533,  Registered and Recorded and was responsible for all Council Surveys  as below:-
******
 also  Examined  was  our  Pre-Purchase “Sale of Council House” Property Search and Survey , No. M44684 by B.R. Davies, B .S .c. C. Eng. M.I.C.E.  Senior Engineer and Chief Surveyor of Hartlepool Borough Council , dated September 1983 , which also had attached a “Hand Written” Survey Report Document”  for the attention of the “BUYERS” Solicitors, Levinson, Walker & Lister, of  Hartlepool  clearly “ Confirming”  that “ALL” the Land and Property Details Surveyed, and  Recorded on Land Title Deeds CE 74844 “Absolute” had been “Checked“ and were “Validated”  as  “CORRECT”  Dated,  September 1983?  
******
 In the light of all this Documentary Evidence our neighbour accepted that
They had been mistaken and after requesting to view and  inspect the structural damage their extension had caused, to our property,  she  said, she would stop  any further building work they had planned  and would rectify the structural damage to our property.  August 2008, (I could say more, but will not at this moment of time )      

******
Like a any good neighbour of 46 years, I accepted  these  promises  made and had no doubt that they would be honoured. Needless to say, I was  later very Disappointed  and Disgusted , when we received a B141 application from Land Registry, in  October 2008,
more on my challenge to Land Registry and  this B141 application, in my next post, and  I will explain in more detail the following :-

It beggars belief that someone in a position of authority in Land Registry,   could think it’s acceptable as Definitive Proof of  Property Ownership,
To accept the following:-

(a) Documents that are “NOT”  described as an “Official Copy of The Register of Entries”  and are therefore “NOT” admissible as Evidence of the contents of the Register, (Under Section 67 of the Land Registration Act 2002, )

(b) Two (2)  Coloured Photographs of an Outside Toilet Door.
The above is no joke,
******
A person is Entitled to Rely on the Contents of the Land Register as “Definitive” evidence of the state of the Legal Title and anyone who, in placing reliance on the  Registers, suffers loss because of an error by the Registrar, is generally entitled to compensation.! ?

No comments:

Post a Comment