Ok, if you have proof about this you have to be able to proof that the property is worth less now when it´s bigger than maximum of the detaljplan allows and why. It think it´s a tough one.A Roszka skrev:
Now, this is not anymore about the business or the garage, I mentioned about this as this is how we found out it's avout the fact that the value of the house is significantly lower due to the fact that there are not all necessary building permits.E erikjakan skrev:
And by law (according to kommun) ypu need a building permit for a change of use, like from garage purpose (residential use) for a buissine use as it has to meet some requirements, but as I said, it's no longer the case
Claes Sörmland
Medlem
· Sörmland och stan
· 21 942 inlägg
Claes Sörmland
Medlem
- Sörmland och stan
- 21 942 inlägg
Probably, 11 kap. 64 § PBL applies.
The court case RH 2014:33 is one of the few examples that gives insight into how this regulation should be applied. Read it here:
https://lagen.nu/dom/rh/2014:33
What is nice with the case is that Hovrätten gives pretty clear instructions how to assess the applicability of 11 kap. 64 § PBL.
The court case RH 2014:33 is one of the few examples that gives insight into how this regulation should be applied. Read it here:
https://lagen.nu/dom/rh/2014:33
What is nice with the case is that Hovrätten gives pretty clear instructions how to assess the applicability of 11 kap. 64 § PBL.
According to this you might have a case but since they actually had to tear down the part that had been built without a permit they had an easier time proving they had suffer financial loss.
Seem like it boils down to what Jonatan is asking. If you bought the house 2,5 years ago for 2,995,000kr, what would the market value at that time be with the knowledge if missing permits and is the difference significant enough?
Seem like it boils down to what Jonatan is asking. If you bought the house 2,5 years ago for 2,995,000kr, what would the market value at that time be with the knowledge if missing permits and is the difference significant enough?
I was referering to the court case Claes S published above, in that case the plaintiff had to tear down part of the building that was built without a permit and hence it was more obvious what kind of financial loss they had.
In your case you can don´t have to tear down anything and the house is as intended but with some limitation to future use because of the lack of permits.
I fully agree with you that the property is probably be worth less then if it had all permits in place but these limitation of future use and putting a value of them is harder to evaluate and that is also why its riskier taking to court.
That is why we are asking what the broker valuation from the period valued the property at (with the knowledge of missing permits) and if this is signification less then you bought it for?
If the values comes in at only 100k lower then you bought it for it might not be significant enough and the whole upside of trying the case in court might not be worthwhile whereas the case might be different if the values in half a million lower.
In your case you can don´t have to tear down anything and the house is as intended but with some limitation to future use because of the lack of permits.
I fully agree with you that the property is probably be worth less then if it had all permits in place but these limitation of future use and putting a value of them is harder to evaluate and that is also why its riskier taking to court.
That is why we are asking what the broker valuation from the period valued the property at (with the knowledge of missing permits) and if this is signification less then you bought it for?
If the values comes in at only 100k lower then you bought it for it might not be significant enough and the whole upside of trying the case in court might not be worthwhile whereas the case might be different if the values in half a million lower.
Redigerat:
Jag har ingen fråga.Bananskalare skrev:
