loft conversion

troubledfifi

I am in the process of buying a house which has a loft conversion and is used by the current owners as an occasional room .. I have now discovered it doesn't have building regs approval though has an indemnity insurance .. but my solicitors advise is should only be used for storage. It is not used as this currently nor was advertised by the estate agents as this.. and has been valued by my lender as a loft conversion. I am waiting to hear if based on this new information I will still be offered a mortgage.
My question is, the estate agents and owners are selling the property with an occasional room .. and my offer was based on this, with the new information, should I put in a lower offer? What should I do. They say they won't get retrospective approval.:(

Doozergirl

You would need a structural engineer to tell you if the structure is safe to use as a room. Building Regs, whilst a concern are not the be-all and end-all of whether a room is habitable. Lots of house wouldn't have had building control sign off because of their age, and are perfectly habitable yet their extensions are an apparant concern.

I think your solicitor is a bit confused really. It isn't the presence of building regs that makes a room habitable. It is simply whether or not it is safe. It could have been built to exceed regulations at the time (I doubt it though!) but they just didn't go through the correct process.

By talking to your lender, your solicitor is probably going to scupper this. From what I've read on here, it's much easier to buy indemnity policies rather than argue with a lender on what is needed as they take a long time to respond and are possibly quite inflexible in their interpretations.

It would simpler to satisfy yourselves as to the quality of the conversion and then accept the indemnity policy if the structural report comes back okay. You might ask your vendor to pay for this as they havne't done things correctly previously. Keep the structural report as you may need it when you sell yourselves!

poppysarah

Doozergirl wrote: »

I think your solicitor is a bit confused really. It isn't the presence of building regs that makes a room habitable. It is simply whether or not it is safe.

But building regs are there for a reason - and a room without building regs might not make your insurance valid.

shane42

it is highly unlikely to meet regulations on the following points;

structral safety
sound insulation
thermal insulation
electrical safety
water and heating heating regulations

but iam sure its fine

Doozergirl

poppysarah wrote: »

But building regs are there for a reason - and a room without building regs might not make your insurance valid.

I know exactly why building regulations are there. I am saying that having it is not the only way that a structure can be sound. It can be sound without it - in fact most houses never had formal approval because it didn't exist with any type of stringent measures until fairly recently.

If the structure is safe and has been surveyed and shown to be safe then there should be no insurance issue to ever have to contend with. If there were, then the surveyor and ultimately his PII provider would end up responsible for the oversight. If you build a shed for an extension and try to claim off your buildings insurance for it falling down then there is going to be some questioning over whether it is covered if it were never built properly - which is fair enough.

The loft conversion that the OP refers to may never have been carried out properly at all and a structural engineer may dismiss it and therefore the house price should never reflect that room. It may be fine but with a couple of caveats around fire safety - and the OP should consider this if they plan to use the room. But whether a room is a room is not something which building control can decide although the presence of BCA will confirm it. It is whether it is safe to be used that decides whether a room is a room.

Lack of regs would places a question mark over the soundness of a building but to have that comfirmed by a structural engineer or a surveyor solves the problem. The remaining issue is one of beaurocracy. An indemnity policy sorts out the paperwork issue and having it surveyed ultimately makes the surveyor responsible for getting his findings wrong.

troubledfifi

Thanks .. it may be fine but if the lender revalues it then my offer should be less to reflect the fact that it has one less room surely?

Doozergirl

troubledfifi wrote: »

Thanks .. it may be fine but if the lender revalues it then my offer should be less to reflect the fact that it has one less room surely?

If you think it is a benefit to you to have it revalued lower then that is good for you. Whether your vendor sees the same is the potential issue.

If you think the price reflects this house with a habitable room and that is what you expect and need then if it does not meet a structural standard required then of course it should be revalued.

But I think that your solicitor is jumping the gun and potentially causing a larger issue. If the structure is sound and safe then an indemnity policy would suffice. The lack of building regs doesn't make it uninhabitable - a lack of workmanship will. The lack of approval does not necessarily reflect the lack of workmanship - your solicitor is making that assumption and it would be wrong to assume without a structural survey.

Yes your lender may well revise their offer simply based on the lack of approval - the flipside being that they would initially accept an indemnity policy for the full value as long as a surveyor has said it is structurally sound. If your vendor insists that it is sound and a structural report would reflect that then I am still not sure that the paperwork people would revise their offer back upwards whereas they are happy to accept an indemnity policy if the argument hasn't already been started by your solicitor, iyswim.

I'm suggesting that someone applies common sense first and actually checks that it is safe before telling a mortgage lender that it isn't. I suggest that it is paid for by the vendor so that you don't incur that cost if the outcome is not a good one.

G_M

Your insurers will NOT be happy!

roses

poppysarah wrote: »

But building regs are there for a reason - and a room without building regs might not make your insurance valid.

Building regs change all the time eg my neighbours have their original victorian doors & a loft conversion which was fine when they had theirs done 10 years ago. Last year I had to remove my victorian doors and replace with fire doors as building regs have changed even though my neighbours still have their victorian doors.

As longs as building regs were met at the time of build, not the current building regs, then it's fine.

The thing you really need to look out for is if the council were not informed of the build then is the loft structually safe ie it has steel supports and adequete floor strength to be used as a room?

troubledfifi

Worst case scenario is that I could report the Estate Agents to the local Trading Standards Officer, and prosecute under the Property Misdescription Act, if the room is not an occasional room as described in the property particulars.
Meantime, I will be advised by solicitor and lender, but think a structural report on the loft paid for by the vendor would satisfy all concerned.:(

troubledfifi

The loft was converted pre 2004 by previous owners and no building regs approval was obtained as far as anyone is aware, which is why the current owners have a lack of building regs indemnity policy.:(