Catch-22 couple evicted
Saturday 11th September 2010, 2:30PM BST.
A COUPLE who broke planning laws when they rebuilt their Talbot Valley home are to be evicted.
Andrew and Hege Bougourd and dogs Benji and Emmy outside their St Andrew’s home, from which they will be evicted in six months’ time. (Picture by Steve Sarre, 1026252)
Andrew and Hege Bougourd have six months before Close Finance (CI) Ltd takes possession of their family home.
The Bougourds claim that the lead-up to their eviction yesterday in the Ordinary Division of the Royal Court was a breach of human rights.
Mr and Mrs Bougourd accept that they broke the planning regulations when building Le Haut, Les Niaux, St Andrew’s, but argue they were then trapped in a catch-22 situation.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
I don’t understand much to do with housing laws, but why do they need to be evicted? Can’t they just changed the design?
Seems stupid imo, what are Close Finance gonna do with it?
Report abuse
Catch-22 of your own making. No sympathies from me whatsoever. Think of how the island would look if these people were allowed to set a precedent.
You took your chance. Now you are suffering the consequences. I very much doubt many others will feel much differently either.
Harsh lesson but one you won’t be repeating in a hurry. Others will learn from this too.
I am left wondering why the building inspector hadn’t alerted them at a much earlier stage they are off plan?
Report abuse
I am still baffled as to why the planners let them ‘get away with it’
However, to take a slightly different tack, the house is awfully ugly and out of proportion from the angle in this photo. Two 1970s style casement windows, topped by an almost triangular slab of glass, punctuated with random glazing bars. That is more of an eyesore than many of the buildings recently described as that.
I wonder what the two gentlemen who started up the petition think about this building?
Report abuse
Wonder who ends up living it? any of the complainants, neighbours or proprieters of the loan company?
Bougourds a fool but he’s been stitched liek a kipper yer!
Report abuse
I have no sympathy for this couple, they tried to beat the system by breaking the rules, and thought they would get away with it.
Lesson learnt, now just move on and stop complaining.
Report abuse
Its their own fault. its the kids i feel sorry for. No good appealing to the media. They should have stuck to the original plans. I hope they are evicted
Report abuse
They fought the law and the law won.
Move on, get over it.
It’s the dogs I feel sorry for – having such foolhardy owners that have rendered them homeless-!
Report abuse
Interesting to see who ends up owning the property tooxar! Probably someone connected to Close as you suggest but on the other hand it must be demolished surely after all of this fuss!.
I also am wondering where the buildings inspector was while it was being built. Maybe a word in their ear might have saved a lot of heartache and misery.
what a waste. Maybe not my idea of a house but it is a home for someone surely. But no one connected to the bank maybe!
Report abuse
I get that they’ve broken to planning laws, but what I don’t understand is how this means that they are now being evicted by Close?…I don’t see the link.
I no longer live in the Island so I probably miss a lot of the details which the paper has printed about this situation.
Can someone explain?
Report abuse
Sad as it is, they WERE aware of the rules and regulations all through this event, and the Bougourd’s obviously thought they could get away with it. So not only will they have a mortgage to keep on having to pay, without anything to show for it, but presumably they will have to make good what is wrong with the house so that someone can buy it and pay back Close Finance – with whom they took out the mortgage.
Everyone else has to toe the line – why should these people be any different. As johnT says “lesson learnt”.
Report abuse
Having read the timeline that was in the press a few months ago they knew that what they were doing went against the planners and I think they were also warned to stop but they didn’t – so serves them right, the system is there for a reason, you can’t do what you want and then think you’ll get retrospective permission, and I’m really getting fed up with them going on about how hard done by they are, tough, they shouldn’t have been so cocky.
Report abuse
Its a shame one of the islands wealthy individuals, possibly the likes of Derek Coates or Peter Ferbrache could not offer the Bourgourds a temporary financial solution in order that the family home would not be lost.
These people are being hung out to dry and I dont feel thats an appropriate way to treat a family.
Report abuse
simon
It amazes me that you should even suggest they be helped by wealthy islanders, unless you are one of the Bougourds and trying a different way of getting out the situation you are in.
There are far more deserving cases on the island than the Bougourds, who broke the law.
Why not help those struggling with their rent or mortgage whom have kept to the rules throughout the lives, and are in financial problems through no fault of their own.
Simon , this couple have hung themselves out to dry by trying to beat the authorities and the law, believe me there is a lot that hasn’t been made public.
Report abuse
If I’m honest, I’m a little exasperated by this.
I think the final outcome is probably deserved if a little harsh, as it was clear that the couple broke the rules and were fully aware they were breaking the rules for most of the project, so really this is just a very harsh come-uppance.
However the way its happened frankly is typical Guernsey.
Environment stick by their guns for so long, which I think surprised the general public. It’s this alone which precipitated the Bougourds mortgage problem, then suddenly Environment completely change tact and allow them to remediate the work themselves, which was in total contrast to the stance they have taken for over a year.
What precedent this sets for islanders is “yes, if you can afford it have a go at getting round us, as long as your finances are in order”.
As I understand it, the only reason this is here in the press again is because the family had struggled with the terms of the mortage, if they had managed to keep Close sweet, then they would be ok.
So in short, Guernsey has one again failed to take a stance. Environment’s procedures, rules and regulations are still clear as mud. And the only people that win are the finance houses, hmmmmmm thats Guernsey through and through!
FWIW though, from the pictures in the press, I have to say, that house looks awful.
Report abuse
Some more information on this case would be nice.
Is this a case where local people hoped common sense would prevail? In other words, is this a technical breach, or one that really matters? If it is a case of wrong box ticked, or slightly late application that would otherwise have been granted then I can’t help feeling this is a little harsh.
More info please GP (or someone who actually knows the truth here).
Report abuse
Why should they be bailed out by “wealthy individuals”?
This is their own doing and deserve everything thats coming to them.
Report abuse
I dont understand how so many of you can be so harsh. Okay so they did wrong but you dont have to kick someone when they are down. The house looks fine to me – a lot better than these glass carbuncles that a certain architect keeps being allowed to produce. I think they should be allowed to do what they can to correct it and stay where they are – not be evicted.
Report abuse
Truth Man
To be fair to the press, they have done a pretty good job of reporting this.
One of the earlier articles on this matter stated that the building controller had been up and told them there was a material deviation from what they had been given permission for, so we can presume they were aware, but seemingly carried on regardless. Presumably because they thought that environment would eventually buckle.
Seems like a very high stakes gamble that didnt pay off. Environment did buckle, but too late.
Caris
I dont think anyone is being overly harsh, the law has to apply at some point surely, it seems from previous reporting that they were given plenty of chances.
This is a very harsh outcome yes, and no-one wants to see them evicted. I certainly dont, but you have to balance that with the fact that lines have to be drawn somewhere, if they werent, every builder on the island would be succesfully doing exactly what has happened here!
And that is not fair on the rest of the island.
Report abuse
This whole story is a shambles. The Bourgourds are not without money. anybody would think they were on the breadline.
That house and land is worth more than is owed on it.
Report abuse
Oh come on Caris. At the end of the day they went against planning and built without a care hoping they would get away with it. now they arent getting away with it they are putting out the sob story. Its about time someone put their foot down about wealthy people getting their own way all the time.
Report abuse
All these people saying “there own fault” etc. etc. Where was the planning officer when the building was constructed?
And a more important question WTF are some finance company gonna do with it.
Report abuse
@GG
To answer your questions.
They went against the plans, planning officer, they were caught out, they lost. They can’t make their mortgage payments with Close therefore are being evicted.
Close will make the necessary changes to change it back to what was originally agreed and then sell it covering what they paid for it and the cost needed to make the changes.
Quite simple really. I thought you were a property expert?
Report abuse
GG
Have you read any of this thread?? Or any of the previous reports where there answer to your question has been mentioned numerous times.
Planning office said it was wrong, numerous times, the bougourds have admitted that, as have the environment department.
All of the above is freely avaiable on this website if you care to look!
And as for your last question, you do understand the idea of a mortgage right??
Report abuse
Although I usually try my best to be sympathetic, with the exceptions of the children and the dogs I’m finding it hard to have any here. Mr and Mrs Bougourd simply have nobody to blame but themselves – they flagrantly broke planning laws and are reaping the consequences. If they had stuck to the plan it is unlikely they would be in this mess.
Now I see they are claiming breaches of their human rights. No surprises here I suppose – the human rights card is often played by those who remain unwilling to accept full responsibility for their actions. It’s like a convicted criminal claiming his human rights are being violated by being sent to prison.
Frankly, when it comes to housing my sympathies lie elsewhere. It is with those who cannot afford a place to stay and will end up sofa surfing for yet another night, or the worker who has been made redundant and now can’t pay the rent. It’s certainly not with a couple who thought they could get away with it, didn’t and are now claiming to be victims.
Report abuse
Dave, so why can’t they make the necessary changes? And why should Close make profit from the Brouards?
I’m no property expert, only immigration.
Report abuse
I am with the majority on this one – I do not have sympathy for the Bougourds. They knew what they were doing was wrong and now are expecting lots of help and sympathy from others. I would love to live in a house of the size that they were given permission for and with all that land. They have been greedy and the “having your cake and eating it” saying has fallen foul on them. Rules are rules and as much as we moan about them you do realise why they are there in the long run and none of us are above the law.
Report abuse
@GG
I would suggest you read up on the story and read up on terms and conditions of mortgages. That’ll answer a lot of your questions. This is not a unique situation it’s just not heard of much in such a small community as most people pay their mortgage payments and don’t go off on a whim and make alterations to their house which wasn’t agreed by planning. Oh and they were told what they were doing was wrong but went and did it anyway.
Report abuse
GG
Who are the Brouards? Have you got inside knowledge of another family we haven’t heard about yet?
Report abuse
Been away for a bit and read all of the above. Can someone answer a few questions for me?
They have broken planning laws correct? Then this is separate to payment of finance?
If they cannot afford to change the building to what is acceptable then I can understand the reasons behind the finance company being worried about increased debt.
I am being slightly lazy in not getting the back issues of the GP and thought it was easier to get the info off all you folks.
Report abuse
Just a case of ‘He who borrows dislikes to repay’
Report abuse
Donk
Go to the very top right hand corner of this page and type Hege Bougourd in the site search box and you’ll get pages and pages of back history to this story
Report abuse
There is a ‘gentleman’ who has become the scourge of his neighbourhood by openly and systematically changing (wrecking) a cottage in one of the prettiest parts of our island, with several structures built outside his boundaries (which he has ‘extended’ into another person’s land) and major excavations, most of which has been applied for retrospectively (whilst remaining firmly in place).
Apparently, Environment are aware, but don’t actually CHECK whether structures are being built within boundaries, and are pretty much useless when it comes to do anything about it….
IMO it is high time that the Environment dept/Planning got off their collective, very well paid backsides and actually did their job, and prosecuted more people for flouting the laws that the rest of us have the cost, inconvenience and hassle of having to deal with.
Report abuse
@GG
Along comes the bumbling GG, yet again cluless in the face of the obvious, give it up GG, you are only an expert in looking the fool.
Report abuse
@GG
In order to give ANY of your comments any merit could you answer just a couple of questions for me? You’ve previously stated that you are 17 (although you may well be 18 by now) and that you have a law degree (on previous threads of this nature as I’ve gone back and looked through them to catch up on the story).
Previously on this thread you stated that you are an immigration expert (if this is not meant as tongue in cheek) then how so?
How do you have a law degree at 18?
Is your degree an undergraduate degree?
Are you a qualified solicitor or have you taken your exams to be a barrister/advocate?
It seems to me that you wish to create controversy and create arguments.
I really have no idea why the thought of creating waves interests you so much….do you have hobbies?
Report abuse
The Bougourd’s have scored a huge own goal here. The IDC, or whatever you want to call them, have made 100s of ill informed decisions which no doubt have mainly benefited the wealthy on the island.
No one I have spoken has one shred of sympathy for the family. They blatantly broke the Law. End of. Do the crime and do the time….
Report abuse
GG only does it to get a rise. It would be best that his posts are ignored but there’s always a new poster who hasn’t had the pleasure of hearing the rest of GG’s colourful CV to know better therefore he gets what he wants.
He has been caught out several times but dodges the bullet by going ‘quiet’ for a couple of days then pops up somewhere else spouting something or other about bloney foreigners.
He’s not 17/18. He’s not a she. He’s hasn’t got a law degree and he’s not a qualified architect (I think that one came from his “friend” Jimm actually…” what he has got is too much time and not enough outside interests.
Looking back on this story it is a shame that it has lead to this family’s eviction but I can see why. I can also understand them wanting to do absolutley anything they can to avoid getting turfed out their home.
Report abuse
None of us would relish being turfed out of our homes. However, what concerns me is that it won’t be the wealthy who come to their rescue, more likely is that it will be us, the tax payer. If this family has money, as is suggested in this thread, would they not not have taken steps to use that to put right the situation, rather than risk eviction? I can see in the not too distant future, them going into States owned property, both feeling depressed and, unable to work, and hey ho, our benefits system steps in.
Report abuse
RE: Sarah’s Commwnt “I hope they are evicted” this is just outragious to say this to a family. Eviction can happen to anyone, even you!!
Report abuse