Buying house with internal walls removed - building regs etc..

JoeA81

I'm looking for a bit of advice.

We are buying a typical 1930s mid terrace house in London where there has been some internal structural alterations. The wall between the entrance hall and the front room has been removed, as has the wall between the kitchen and the rear living room. Also the chimney breasts have been removed in the front living room and front bedroom.

The structural survey highlighted these alterations and said:

"such alterations should only be undertaken with the consent of the Local Authority Building Regulations Department. If no such consent is found to be present we can give no guarantee as to the adequacy of support provided"

and in the case of the walls that had been removed, the survey said

"If no consent is in place it may be necessary to install steel beams to the underside"

We have told our solicitor to ask the vendors solicitor if the work was carried out in compliance with the building regulations, but we are still waiting to hear back (as their solicitor is Wolstenholmes, that presents other problems - see this thread http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1792897, but that's another issue!)

But we went to see the house again today to meet with the vendor to discuss this issue among others like fixtures and fittings, and he knows nothing about the alterations as they were all done before he bought the house 12 years ago. He said he had a survey done when he bought the house but the removal of these walls never came up as an issue.

Now our solicitor's searches have to my knowledge pulled up no records of any kind of permissions granted from the building regulations department, which is making me worried that this work was not done with their approval, especially as the current owner can throw no light on the situation.

In fairness the survey did say that there were no signs of anything untoward, but again the surveyor said that they could give no guarantees of this.

We really like the house, and are quite far down the road towards exchange. We have already spent £700 on the survey, £1000 on our mortgage, and £300+ to the solicitor, so we really want to solve this.

Is it possible to take away load bearing walls like this and NOT install some kind of steel beam to support the walls above? From everything we have seen, from the vendor and the survey, the house looks in good condition, and we certainly dont think it is about to fall down any time soon!

Will their solicitor be able to pull up some kind of record as to whether this work was done to building regulations, or does it seem likely that of the vendor knows nothing, then the solicitor will have no more information?

We really want to exchange, but Im not sure what the next step is... Do we need to be looking at indemnity insurance, or do we need to get a structural engineer to rip their house apart to see if there is a steel beam where the walls used to be? Or do we get the buildings regulations people to look at it? And who pays for all this? Or should we just sit tight until their solicitor gets back to ours?

Thanks for any advice.

Doozergirl

It's a lot of walls to remove - you can't really assume at all but if I were able to, I'd assume that there has to be some kind of support in place, especially through the middle of the house. Where a structural wall is removed between two rooms you would (unless the owner had spent a small fortune disguising it) expect to find evidence of where an RSJ has been placed - it would look basically like the wall hadn't been removed all the way up to the ceiling.

For that number of walls though I would recommend a strcutural engineer having a bit of a poke around at least. I'd suggest you make the vendor pay. I cannot believe that any surveyor would not mention the fact that two walls and two chimney breasts were missing

Do not phone the council - any advice given to you on this board to do so is misinformed. What you want to establish here is that either the vendors themselves produce the completion certificates for building regs, or you obtain some peace of mind from a professional, doubled with an indemnity policy to satisfy your lender. Your lender will not be happy if an indemnity policy cannot be purchased for building regs - what you should be personally concerned with is whether the work carried out was safe or not.

JoeA81

Thanks Doozergirl, your reply makes perfect sense. You're right, all we are concerned with is the safety of the work, and that this isnt going to come and bite us when we come to sell in the future.

Looking at the ceiling where the walls used to be, there doesnt seem to be any evidence of an RSJ. Hmmm. I think we know what to do now. Thanks.

clutton_2

if the vendor has been there 12 years, and it was done before he bought the house, it seems to have stood the test of time... so one assumes there is some support... has the chimney breast been removed in the attic also - if not, there should be some support for it also ?

oneeye1

Doozergirl wrote: »

It's a lot of walls to remove - you can't really assume at all but if I were able to, I'd assume that there has to be some kind of support in place, especially through the middle of the house. Where a structural wall is removed between two rooms you would (unless the owner had spent a small fortune disguising it) expect to find evidence of where an RSJ has been placed - it would look basically like the wall hadn't been removed all the way up to the ceiling.

not true

bosseyed

oneeye1 wrote:

not true

You'll have to elaborate on that!

I'd have thought the most likely scenario is that there is either one ruddy great RSJ running the length of the house from front to back along the line where the previous hall/living room and kitchen/dining room structural walls were, or two seperate RSJ's resting on a central 'column' remaining from the structural walls. They might either be supported on protruding columns at the front and back of the house, or fixed into the external walls at front and back, and I'd agree with Doozergirl in that there will more than likely be a 'stub' of wall at ceiling level which is generally the plasterboard fire cladding concealing the RSJ. Depending on the size of the openings, whoever did the work may have used concrete lintels, but either way you would 100% need some kind of new support.

And as Doozergirl suggests, if the vendors can't produce certificates of compliance/completion from either council building control or independant building control, then either get a structural engineer in (at the vendors expense) or just walk away. Indemnity insurance is all well and good, but its you that has the issue if things start to crumble - just because something has stood for 12 years, doesn't imply it will continue to stand for ever more. If it was done on the cheap and is supported by luck then you need to find that out before you commit. Thats a lot of structural walls to remove from a house and you want to make sure its all been done properly. A structural engineer would be able to advise pretty quickly what the situation is.

Doozergirl

oneeye1 wrote: »

not true

Can I put in my nomination for most useless post ever?

Apart from the fact that my post is saying 'not to assume' also that it is possible, with extra expense incurred, that there is no clear evidence of support when it is in fact there, exactly what is not true? I don't think I could have been more non-commital unless I'd simply not replied at all. You could perhaps help the OP here with your knowledge

marcg

Not wanting to get involved in the "not true" business but there is the possibility that the walls removed were not load-bearing. A house less than 4.5m wide may have its floor joists spanning from party wall to party wall. If this is the case, the floorboards upstairs will run parallel to the party walls (so front to back of the house). In this case (and it's not unusual for 1930s houses) all the walls in the house are non-loadbearing (and often thin; hence the historic criticism of "modern" houses having walls like cardboard).

Otherwise, a RSJ could be concealed within the depth of the floor (typical 3m spanning RSJ 200mm deep within typical 225mm floor depth) but this is unusual to do since all the floor joists would have had to have been temporarily supported, cut and then hung off the new RSJ. However, London being London, perhaps someone rich was very interested in the aesthetics of completely removing a wall? Unlikely though.

oneeye1

or there could be a lower ceiling put in to hide any evidence alot of people did this to make it more modern looking plus you can insulate add down lighting

GSXRCarlos

oneeye1 wrote: »

or there could be a lower ceiling put in to hide any evidence alot of people did this to make it more modern looking plus you can insulate add down lighting

Now this is a slightly better post tahn your first one, thanks for your input


to the OP, i don't know about the house you're looking at but like others have said, if it's still stood up after 12 years, it "should" be fine.

You're definitely gonna needa structural engineer, but like one eye suggests you may have a false or suspended ceiling.

Check other houses in the area for ceiling heights and measure against the one you want

Hope that helps a little bit

JoeA81

Thanks for all your comments. Here is the floor plan, to shed some more light on the issue:



We spoke to the Surveyor yesterday and he said that we just wont know what the situation is unless we get a strucutral engineer in and he lifts the floorboards and has a look. He also said it was perfectly possible for someone to bodge it and not use an RSJ.

I am almost wishing we didnt know about this and could live in ignorance, as clearly the thats what the current owner has done, and he has enjoyed 12 years in a nice house. But now the point has been raised we cant ignore it..

Oh and in reply to one of the earlier posts, the survey says the remainder of the front chimney breast remains in the loft and is supported by a concrete plinth.