Report result: loadbearing walls removed. Vendor had no approval. What should I do?

bluu2k

I am sorry for a bit lengthy message as I am not very good at explaining technical issues.:o But I really need your input and appreciate very much your taking time to go through my post.:A

The vendor of a 1900 terraced house made some structural alteration about 20 years ago. He did not declare these alterations on the HIP. He said he did not obtain any permission/approval from the local authority for these changes as it was not necessary/not required by law.

On first floor, the vendor removed the loadbearing wall (which was at the centre point of the roof) to make room for an ensuite bathroom to the master bedroom.


Our independent Homebuyer Report red-flags:

“It is not therefore possible to determine the means by which the structure above is now supported without opening up the structure. It will have been necessary to insert a rolled steel joist”, and

“The struts have been repositioned to open out the centre of the roof space but this means that the struts are bearing on the ceiling joists alone which are not designed to bear the load of anything but the ceiling and therefore the struts need to be reinstated to bear off the central lateral loadbearing partition.”

The vendor, who used to be a builder, said in order to support the roof, he still left the original beam in its place (and we actually saw something looked like a beam there); and put in two new smaller beams on two sides of the original one to bear the struts.

He explained that as the distance from each new beam to the original one was less than 1 meter, he was not required to obtain approval from the local authority.

We climbed up to the loft and saw two parallel small beams joining from side to side of the house, each footed two struts which connected to the roof.


Our Homebuyer Report suggested that we get further advice from a full structural surveyor on how to deal with the beam/struts/roof issue in case of absence of appropriate approval/permission and relevant waranty,


The loadbearing wall at ground (same position as one on first floor) was also removed to make through lounge. However, the Homebuyer Report did not spot any prob with it, as "in the absense of evidence of movement it is assumed that adequate means of support exists."


I just talked with one surveyor who quoted me £500 (VAT incl.) for him to come and measure the current beams and check the roof structure. He also told me that as this work was done nearly 20 years ago, the local authority will not be interested in issuing any approval or permission.

My concerns at present are:

1. Is the surveyor correct that local authorities will not grant permission/approval for structural changes done more than 1 year ago?

2. Will having no approval/permission for structural alteration as such be big probs for us in the future with insurance and house saleability?

3. Is it safe and sound with what the vendor did with the house (adding beams and repositioning the struts)?

There are some more minor issues mentioned in our Homebuyer Report, but I don’t want to bother you with those before we know how to sort out the above concerns. We got lender’s valuation report and mortgage approval flying through without spotting any problems with the house.

Many thanks,

DVardysShadow

bluu2k wrote: »

My concerns at present are:

1. Is the surveyor correct that local authorities will not grant permission/approval for structural changes done more than 1 year ago?

2. Will having no approval/permission for structural alteration as such be big probs for us in the future with insurance and house saleability?

3. Is it safe and sound with what the vendor did with the house (adding beams and repositioning the struts)?


Many thanks,

I think that you have thought of all the issues here. 2 is the big one, because whatever you go through now, your buyer will face when you sell.

On 1, you can get a regularisation certificate, which is not full building regs, but effectively means that the council will no longer take interest in the issue. On 3, the structural engineer is worthwhile, and you should keep the report to hand forward when you sell.

vegasbaby100

THe l/a i belive will be able to issue a retrospective building control certificate however this costs quite a bit more than a normal building control certificate.

Personally and this is just me, if the surveryor is questioning the structure of the property i would only proceed if I was 100% sure either by getting a surveryor or a specialist to quote for the works.

ognum

Get advice from a structural engineer quickly and dont stand under the roof until you have!

GDB2222

ognum wrote: »

Get advice from a structural engineer quickly and dont stand under the roof until you have!

Yes, my thought exactly. I wouldn't set foot in this death trap, even if reassured by a structural engineer. Plenty more houses out there .....

bluu2k

Thanks very much for your valuable comments, especially on the possibility to obtaining a retro certificate.:A:A:A

I just checked to find from the relevant local authority's webiste that upon receipt of the regularisation application (and paid fee, of course:eek:), they may need to inspect parts of the works and remedial works may be required before a certificate can be issued. (Several other local authorities also suggest the same things)

Seems the LA inspector will do exactly what our independent structural surveyor would do? And more than that, the LA inspector will have a say YES or NO to the already-done work?:D

If so, should I go for the LA inspector now, and come to our independent structural surveyor only if the former disapproves the alterations and requests further remedies?

Or should I get double check from both of them (and pay twice:o)?

(After reading the Homebuyer Report, I had a long chat with the surveyor who did that report for me. He said from what he observed there was nothing wrong with the property and he could not fault it with any failures relating to the removal of those internal loadbearing walls.:T He said he will be satisfied with its current state if the relevant approval was/is in place.)

Richard_Webster

If it was done 20 years ago I think you will find that they don't do regularisation certificates for work done that long ago. If you talk to the Council you will be stuck with doing whatever they require to meet the modern regulations, which could be very expensive.

Talking to the Council also means that a Building Regulation Indemnity Policy will not be available. These are of questionable real value but are often needed to satisfy mortgage lender's requirements.

The important thing is OP is happy that there is no structural problem. To some extent it is a matter of common sense - the more recent the work the more the understandable concern. There must be lots of features in Victorian houses that would not be acceptable under modern regulations but are happily accepted.

I would be asking the seller to be obtaining a structural engineer's report (written so that you can rely on it) that the work done is adequate to support the structure etc.

tek-monkey

I also have a similar issue, wall was removed around 25 years ago but not sure there was anything official applied for at the time. My solicitor mentioned an indemnity policy, just in case?

FuzzyMoose

Richard_Webster wrote: »

The important thing is OP is happy that there is no structural problem. To some extent it is a matter of common sense - the more recent the work the more the understandable concern. There must be lots of features in Victorian houses that would not be acceptable under modern regulations but are happily accepted.

I would be asking the seller to be obtaining a structural engineer's report (written so that you can rely on it) that the work done is adequate to support the structure etc.

Well it has not fallen down in the last 20 years...

bluu2k

Well, for me things become more and more complicated after I get more advice from you Please tell if I understand correctly the issues:

1. In theory all material alterations done from app. 1985 without permission/approval might get regularised now by submitting application and relevant fee to local authority, provided that the LA inspector feels satisfied after doing neccessary tests/inspection; a regularisation certificate will be issued to legally and technically seal off all problems in the future that might relate to such alterations;

2. However, in practice LA might not be willing to deal with such kind of application if the work was done well long time ago (more than 4 years I would guess???), resulting no such regularisation will be issued; Alternatively, LAs might accept application but LA inspector might request remedial work to comply with morden regulations which is very expensive;

3. Because of uncertainty hightlighted in (2) above, it would be wise to ask the vendor to obtain Building Regulation Indemnity Policy to cover legal side of the story (i.e., in case LA for some reasons demanded the new owner to restore the property to its orginal stage, that work will be covered by the indemnity policy).

Pros: cheaper, quickier and more convenient in compare with taking (1) above.

Cons:

• No piece of mind for technical issue;
• Temporary solution as the indemnity policy is valid for 12 months only (what happens after the initial 12 month period? need to buy a new policy after every 12 months, or just when the house is to be sold?); and
• Very high possibility for the indemnity policy to become invalid should anyone approaches the LA about the work in question.

4. In addition to (3), a full structural survey should be done to verify the real technical state of the property. If the result is OK, then together with Indemnity Policy the buyer should be confident to go ahead with the transaction.

If the result is not OK, the buyer (i) can pull out (in case of major probs), or (ii) can ask the seller to fix the probs before exchange contract, or (iii) can renegotiate the sale price to cover full or part of expenses to fix the probs by the buyer, or (iv) if the seller refuses to reduce, accept that they will have to spend money to fix the probs.

To recap, (1) is ideal option but might not be doable. (3) plus (4) are more realistic and we shoul consider to take, but this route can be done only if (1) has not been done and no contact to the LA has been made, and we should take risk that (3) would become invalid at anytime should any person raises question to the LA.

Am I missing anything? Please advise.

Below are some older threads discussing similar issues:

What is an indemnity policy?
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=159930

Indemnity policies, are they any use?
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=715485

Building Regulations!!! Indemnity Policy!!
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=443752

and extra info:
[FONT=&quot]Building Regulations – a briefing note for home-owners
www.paytons.co.uk/docs/BuildingRegulations.doc[/FONT]

Richard_Webster

Temporary solution as the indemnity policy is valid for 12 months only (what happens after the initial 12 month period? need to buy a new policy after every 12 months, or just when the house is to be sold?)

I think you will find they are valid forever. Possibly the confusion with 12 months is that normally you can't get a Building Regulation policy until the work is 12 months old.