Jump to content

joint_owner

New Member
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Hello Ian Many thanks for your words. (i didn't receive a heads up email - hence the delayed response.) So would it be correct to say that a condition is not necessarily in breach of guidelines if it cannot be discharged within the conditions discharge process? Shame, but i suppose not a total surprise given logic is moot in law and that the planners seem to reside in a different world - at least in Powys! I am receiving advice saying apply to amend the consent, planners want cert's of lawfulness. Just a bit confused as to best path forward to 'sign off'.
  2. Hello just stumbled on this and as i'm going to go bald fast over planning i thought i would ask your opinion on the off chance the offer still stands. (The very kind offer). We have nine planning conditions outstanding that "contain nothing to discharge" or can't be discharged. 6x conditions said to be "completed to such a degree as to enable discharge" according to LPA's own ecologists, (local planning authority) . 2x conditions requiring a specific material is used, which it and it is also acknowledged that appropriate evidence has been submitted by t
  3. Many thanks for your words Richard Yes - an agreement would have been a very good thing, but the partners did not subscribe to this view when it was suggested > Part of the reason for the current scenario. In such an "equal division" of an asset as it is purported to be would you say that any caveats giving influence over the future dealings of other parties in the disbanded partnership should be imposed as standard procedure? To my mind it is unbalancing the "equal" goal of the split. I would accept all be it reluctantly the buy back clause if as you suggest initially in your
  4. Hi i find myself in a situation where as a 1/3 joint owner of a property (tenants in common) we are dividing the property as sadly relations are not all as amicable as they might be, comm's are minimal currently. Recently at the "Nth" hour in division proceedings the other two stakeholders, who are hanging onto the remainder of the property have expressed a wish to have a "right to first refusal" option on the portion of the property that i am to hold onto (as sole owner) in the division. Can anyone please tell me what the norm is in such a scenario? Specifically; they are requesting that the
  5. Hi i find myself in a situation where as a 1/3 joint owner of a property (tenants in common) we are dividing the property as sadly relations are not all as amicable as they might be, comm's are minimal currently. Recently at the "Nth" hour in division proceedings the other two stakeholders, who are hanging onto the remainder of the property have expressed a wish to have a "right to first refusal" option on the portion of the property that i am to hold onto (as sole owner) in the division. Can anyone please tell me what the norm is in such a scenario? Specifically; they are requesting that the
×
×
  • Create New...