Akt 16

[AJ113]

Apparently my house doesn't have one. Does anyone know any specialists in this area who may be able to help?

[Seedy]

Are you sure about that? Your first port of call should be the notary who handled the sale; in principle they shouldn't have allowed the Notary Act to proceed without Act 16 - unless it specified that the property was without one. Likewise, it's technically illegal for utilities to be supplied, or residential municipal tax to be charged, unless Act 16 exists.

It's worth considering, if this is in relation to your divorce and the division of assets, that your house is almost worthless without Act 16; it might be to your advantage for this state of affairs to continue for the time being.....
_________________
Passer sa vie à lutter contre la connerie est le meilleur procédé pour mourir épuisé

[Moscow_Wolf]

I'm guessing that the OP must have a new build or some large extension which has planning permission?

There is a whole process of AKTS when building a new dwelling and 16 is the final stage as far as I am aware, but you have to go through the process of getting them signed off as without no 15, there will be no 16 either?

It is a very important aspect for foreigners to know when buying new apartments etc. as some of them are being sold without AKT 16 and then the owners find themselves up a Creek without a Paddle.

[Seedy]

[AJ113]

Firstly, sorry about my belated reply. I'm not getting email notifications of replies.

[AJ113]

My question is, does anyone know someone who may be able to help?

[Seedy]

"Help" in what way? You haven't clarified your situation yet: "apparently" you have no Act 16 - how has this manifested itself? What does the Notary Act say about the property? Does it specify a habitation and does the skitsa match what is verbally described? When did you buy the property?

"Help" might have to come from a lawyer, if you've been cheated by the seller and/or by a dodgy/lax notary - or you might need a surveyor if the skitsa is incorrect and needs to be adjusted to show the building(s) properly. It may just need the Notary Act translating properly to see exactly what you agreed to buy when you signed it.

When it was bought could be relevant as the older the transaction, the greater the possible difficulty in tracking down where/how the problem (if there is one) arose and who is responsible for it. As I said above, maybe there isn't a problem, ie the Notary Act doesn't say that you bought a house in regulation so there IS no Act 16; if that's the case then do you want "help" to sue or to bring it into regulation? If the latter, you'd do well to be sure it's possible before bringing the situation to the attention of the authorities - they have the power to demolish illegally-built houses.

We recently had a similar-ish problem with one of our properties: it suddenly came to light that we "didn't have Act 16", despite the fact that we had had power, water and mains sewage (all of which require Act 16) connected for many years, and had been paying municipal tax for well over a decade. It transpired that the address of our property actually referred to another, older, house in the street, so our house didn't legally exist, despite what the cadaster showed.

The municipality insisted the notary was at fault and the Act had to be retrospectively modified, or re-done from scratch, to include a new and invented address. This would also involve a full survey, a new cadastral entry - and a substantial chunk of dosh. The notary insisted that this was neither possible nor necessary and that the municipality had to sort it out administratively. The staff in the relevant department in the municipality were adamant that they didn't supply such services - to foreigners! It all sounded like a real Balkan mess, with the prospect of long and expensive "help" from lawyers, surveyors and notaries. However, once we'd got a complete idea of what the "problem" was, we sorted it all out ourselves, and in a couple of hours: all it took was a clear head, insistence, diplomacy - and some common sense.

So, I'd suggest that no-one here can recommend "someone who may be able to help" if we don’t know more about what it actually is that you need help with! You MAY need a lawyer to get the ball, and your cash, rolling or you may just need to knock a few heads together yourself; you MAY need to spend a lot of money or you may need to just cut your losses.
_________________
Passer sa vie à lutter contre la connerie est le meilleur procédé pour mourir épuisé

[Moscow_Wolf]

Seedy, which particular branch within the Municipality? I would have suggested going to visit the Head Architect first off with every document pertaining to the property in my possession however, as you suggest, too little information to understand where, why and what for.

It must surely be possible to sell any property without AKT 16 otherwise there could be no 'Off Plan' purchases and where most seaside apartment owners get caught out, but as I understand it, the Architect that submitted the plans for approval in the first place is the one that must either him/herself or via a nominated proxy, visit the new build in stages and check off the AKTs as they're reached. If the Builder goes bankrupt or decides to sell before the final AKT is obtained then, I reckon it can be done, but in that case, the purchaser must be made aware of such otherwise it is fraud. Does that sound about right or well off the mark?

[Seedy]

Mr Wolf, the crucial thing, in my view, is NOT to get the "important" people involved until you absolutely have to - too often they get bogged down in the detail of Plans and Permissions etc and don't know enough about the way in which these things can be handled from a "clerical" point of view. Many properties here also have some "unofficial deviation" from what the approved plans show, so it's better not to draw attention to them by having some official taking a shufti around and comparing what he sees on the plans with what is on the ground

"Off-plan" properties are usually sold against a deposit and stage payments, the final payment(s) not being made until Act 16 is granted, the utilities are connected etc. Interestingly(?), Act 16 is apparently not necessarily definitively granted, in that it can be rescinded, even many years later! The municipal Architect is the one who signs off Act 16 once all the inspections have been completed; it is then officially issued via a bureaucratic process but the Architect can, under exceptional circumstances issue it himself; the circumstances, it would appear, involve a large wad of Euros and a brown envelope... How I happen to know that is a tale that I won't bore you with but suffice it to say that if said Architect subsequently turns up his toes and the Municipality finds itself "embarrassed" by what crawls out of the woodwork a decade or two (or more) later, the current mayor has the power to cancel the Act 16 if he/she can demonstrate that its issuance was overly "unofficial", ie he and/or his mates didn't get a share.
_________________
Passer sa vie à lutter contre la connerie est le meilleur procédé pour mourir épuisé

[AJ113]

The property was a newbuild in 2006, built on the footprint of the original house we bought. The builder (a Brit called John Traynor) didn't do any paperwork, so the house was built completely illegally.

We managed to use the brown envelope route to get planning permission (permission to build), but there is no AKT 16. The house has utilities connected, but that is almost certainly because the previous house was already connected up.

As far as I have learned, the only way to get AKT 16 is another brown envelope. That is what I need help with.

[Seedy]

Well, if there was a house there originally then it's very likely that the the land it was on is in regulation. If that is indeed the case the next questions are: "Was the new house built exactly on the footprint of the old one" and "Has the new house ended up bigger/taller than the original"? Getting it regularised properly is undoubtedly the way to go - if you go the "Brown Envelope Route" you're likely to hit several snags: 1 - whoever you pay to do it will sooner or later not be in a position to cover it up and you're liable to get either another open hand waved under your nose or the permission cancelled (as I said earlier, this is a real possibility, even decades later); 2 - when you come to sell you may well find that the notary (or the buyer's lawyer) sniffs out what happened and you'll lose the sale/get shopped. You'd stand a good chance of having the property demolished and being prosecuted to boot.

Doing the job properly isn't that expensive, doesn't need to take too long and means that nothing will bite you years later; if I were you, I wouldn't hesitate...
_________________
Passer sa vie à lutter contre la connerie est le meilleur procédé pour mourir épuisé

[chazd]

[AJ113]

[AJ113]

[Moscow_Wolf]

I'm sorry to sound thick here, BUT if you rebuilt on the original foundations and did not extend the height of your build above 1 metre of the original roof height of the building then, A) you needed no planning permission and B) you require no AKTS whatsoever.

What am I missing here? Your Brit builder probably had little or no idea of Bulgarian planning permission, never applied for it when it wasn't necessary for a rebuild on original foundations and not exceeding 1 metre additional roof height - you appear to have all mains electricity, water etc. connected so what exactly is the problem?