Prosecutions for lying on PCNs are very rare. This month we report on a cautionary tale which demonstrates what a difference a lie makes if you are an appellant with a burden of proof.

The landowner converted an outbuilding to separate residential use. It would seem that the use may well have started some 6 years before the date the council first became aware of it. A site visit found a tenant in occupation. A planning contravention notice was served. The owner responded saying that the outbuilding had only been rented for a few weeks and that, before rental, it had been used by the owner and his family on an ancillary basis. As this PCN response confirmed the breach and indicated that it was not immune, an enforcement notice was served.

The owner appealed to PINS on ground (d) and the appeal papers were duly received. The appeal papers included evidence of 6 years of use including tenancy agreements, utility bills, addressed correspondence and neighbour statements.   

Giving a false statement on a PCN is a criminal offence under s171D TCPA 1990. As the appeal statement was inconsistent with the PCN response, the owner was invited to an interview under caution. In an effort to save his appeal and his rental income, he admitted that the PCN response was inaccurate. The council therefore decided to prosecute the owner for lying on the PCN. A summons was issued.  

As the owner had admitted that the PCN response was inaccurate, he had little defence to the prosecution and he pleaded guilty. He was fined around £1300 including costs. The conviction will also need to be disclosed for many years to come on things like insurance application forms, visa applications, CRB checks etc and, as a conviction for dishonesty, it will be very adverse.

In the meantime, the appeal against the enforcement notice was heard. The credibility of the appellant’s evidence was destroyed by the fact that he had lied on the PCN. The inspector found that he had not demonstrated continuous use for at least 4 years and dismissed the ground (d) appeal.

The ironic thing is that the enforcement notice may well not have been issued at all had the appellant told the truth on the PCN response. The council may have accepted that the breach was immune. The notice was only issued because the PCN response confirmed the breach and suggested that there was no immunity.  

And even if the notice had been issued, the council had little evidence of its own to challenge the appellant’s story so the appellant may well have won the appeal. It was the false PCN response that cast doubt on that story and meant that additional corroboration was required, corroboration which he could not provide. Even the fact that he admitted the PCN response was false didn’t save his appeal evidence; all it did was get him a fine.  

The burden of proof on a ground (d) appeal is on the appellant. A demonstrated lie is very damaging as it taints everything the appellant says in the appeal.

PCN prosecutions are often not worth the effort; fines are low. But if the threat of prosecution on the PCN exposes a lie, it can be a worthwhile exercise.