3 ms·
Not quite---the rule says (according to the BBC article on this) that the four years starts from completion of the building, which would prevent your scenario.
by blahedo 17y ago
Not quite---the rule says (according to the BBC article on this) that the four years starts from completion of the building, which would prevent your scenario. The current judge appears to be arguing that the bales of hay, which were not structural and to my understanding didn't even touch the house, were integral and that the house was not 'complete' until they were removed. It's a bit of a stretch, and it sure sounds like the judge is just annoyed that this guy found a loophole.
- pmjoyce 17y agoMy understanding was that the point being argued was over whether the removal of the hay bales constituted continuation of the building project - which resets the 4 year time window - or if it was unrelated. Given that the only reason the hay bales were there was to conceal the construction of the property, I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that removing them constitutes part of the project.