Page 40 - The Negotiator Mag 52pp

Seek and ye shall find...
...but not always. Rebecca Marsh, The Property Ombudsman,
adjudicates on a case where a search failed to reveal plans for a four-bedroom house.
The issue the Ombudsman was asked to review concerned the Plansearch Plus Report (the Report) provided
for the purchase of a property and the
fact that planning application for a new build within the grounds of the neighbouring property was not included within the Search.
The search provider disagreed with the view that their Report omitted these details; they pointed to the location of the application and the boundaries of their search and stated that the build was not included due to its nature and location.
Investigation
The Plansearch Plus Report is designed
to provide basic planning information to property professionals and homebuyers.
It is not an exhaustive list of all planning activity in the area, and parameters of the search are set to provide the planning activity most likely to impact the property in question.
The Report recommended that, if nearby development is a particular concern
to purchasers, they should explore this further when considering a property. The Ombudsman noted that the buyers’ solicitor should have been mindful of the potential for development in the area surrounding the property and could have checked for additional planning activity.
The search provider argued against the buyers’ claim that the development was missed, stating that the planning application was categorised as ‘Minor’ based on the description of the works and therefore the radius for such applications is set at 50 metres around the central point of the purchase property. In this case, the address for the planning application was outside 50m radius.
A planning application was submitted for ‘erection of a new single dwelling house on land to the rear of the existing house’ the specifics of which, according to the initial application, were ‘a two-storey house, with ground and first floor accommodation
to provide a four-bedroomed house with attached double garage.’
When examining the Report, alterations and minor new builds within a 50m radius were searched for. When searching for new build a much larger radius of 250m is set. As such, had the application fallen into the
40 AUGUST2022 TN0822_40_Ombudsman glfin.indd 1
The new build in this case was located outside of the 50m search radius.
latter category, it would have been identified within the Report.
Within the body of the Report, the description for alterations and minor
new builds is ‘extensions, barn conversions, and tree works’ and ‘minor new build developments’ indicating that a new build of one property could fall into the minor category. This therefore meant that there could be single dwelling applications within a 50 to 250m radius from the property.
It is unfortunate that the new build in this case was located outside of the 50m search radius, the discovery of which understandably caused upset to the buyers.
Lack of clarity
The buyers made a case for a lack of clarity within the Report and argued against the search provider’s point that even a grid reference created manually would have placed the application more than 50m away from the central search point. Based on the information within the Report, the buyers clearly did not expect to discover a new house build so close to their own boundary. That the build was more than 50m away from the search centre point did not negate this.
Furthermore, the buyers raised a legitimate question about the clarity afforded by the
methodology. For example, although there are some new build applications within
the lower category, there also appeared to
be single new build properties within the ‘New Builds of up to 10 dwellings’ category, for which a much larger radius of 250m is set.
As the buyers stated, there was no indication within the Report of how a new build may be classified. The Ombudsman noted that it is inconsistent and unclear for new build properties to fall into either a 50m or 250m search radius – which are markedly different - when the difference in the developments themselves may be as simple as an additional bedroom or two. This should be highlighted for the benefit of the prospective buyer.
Outcome
The discovery of the application for development of a property, which the buyers would have reasonably expected to be included in their PlanSearch Plus Report, undoubtedly caused them distress.
The Ombudman considered that there was a flaw in the way information was presented by the search provider and supported the complaint to the extent that the Report failed to make fully clear its limitations within the explanatory notes, specifically not being clear that certain new build property applications, within a 250m radius, may not have been highlighted for the consumer’s consideration due to the way in which some dwellings
fall into the minor category. This led to a situation where the buyers now have what they reasonably deem to be a fairly significant build in close proximity to their property.
In the absence of any of further steps
taken by the search provider to identify developments in close proximity to the boundary of a property (such as undertaking a wider search for minor developments as a matter of course to check for potentially significant applications) the categories should have been explicitly defined.
The search provider also failed in their obligation to respond to the complaint and to cooperate with the TPO Review process.
For the reasons stated, the Ombudsman supported the complaint and made a compensatory award of £450 for the aggravation, distress and inconvenience.
www.thenegotiator.co.uk
29/07/2022
13:12
OMBUDSMAN