Inaccurate reply to local authority search – Status of access road – Whether recoverable for development losses – Whether solicitor responsible for checking replies to enquiries
A development hits a serious legal snag that, in principle, should have come to light before the site was acquired. If the trouble stems from an inaccurate reply to the routine enquiries addressed to the local authority, then the main lesson to be learnt from Gooden v Northamptonshire County Council [2002] 1 EGLR 137 is that the liability, if any, incurred by the authority will not extend to development-related losses unless they were notified of the purchaser’s intentions at the time of the enquiry. Even then, the authority may be able to point to an appropriately worded disclaimer: see the Law Society’s Conveyancing Handbook 1999, para 10.5.2.8.
On the specific question of whether a vital access road is “maintainable at public expense”, the case reveals the disturbing possibility of an authority going wrong (negligently or otherwise) because of a discrepancy between plans held for different purposes: see John Murdoch’s account in
A further possibility is that the developer’s solicitor may have negligently misread or failed to see the implications of the answer to his enquiry or failed to see a case for making further enquires: see eg Cottingham v Attey Bower & Jones [2000] EGCS 48.
Inaccurate reply to local authority search – Status of access road – Whether recoverable for development losses – Whether solicitor responsible for checking replies to enquiries
A development hits a serious legal snag that, in principle, should have come to light before the site was acquired. If the trouble stems from an inaccurate reply to the routine enquiries addressed to the local authority, then the main lesson to be learnt from Gooden v Northamptonshire County Council [2002] 1 EGLR 137 is that the liability, if any, incurred by the authority will not extend to development-related losses unless they were notified of the purchaser’s intentions at the time of the enquiry. Even then, the authority may be able to point to an appropriately worded disclaimer: see the Law Society’s Conveyancing Handbook 1999, para 10.5.2.8.
On the specific question of whether a vital access road is “maintainable at public expense”, the case reveals the disturbing possibility of an authority going wrong (negligently or otherwise) because of a discrepancy between plans held for different purposes: see John Murdoch’s account in The slippery slope Estates Gazette 26 January 2002, p172.
A further possibility is that the developer’s solicitor may have negligently misread or failed to see the implications of the answer to his enquiry or failed to see a case for making further enquires: see eg Cottingham v Attey Bower & Jones [2000] EGCS 48.
