Building Regs Approval missed by solicitor

mufi

Thanks, interesting.

Just to add: check if you have legal cover on your house insurance - this may cover you.

chrisyb

OK, have found the response back from there solicitors relating to the works and they stated that there has been an atic conversion and through lounge(1967) and no documents relating to building regs approval are held. This is of course lies as they had the work done in 2000 as declred in the info pack. Where now?

chrisyb

Also found the surveyers report which states that the conveyencors must ensure that all necessary statatory and local authority consents and approvals have been obtained for the conversion and alterations. (this was also sent to conveyencors as they have sent me the copies)

These have not been obtained:mad:

I did not receive a copy of the info passed to the solicitor as they dealt with it.. The architect has confimed that it will cost around 20k to make good and safe.

Surely the buck doesnt pass to me (it is not me job, thats what we pay the solicitor for) and they have not complied with the requests or obtained the documents that were required to protect our interests.

Should I not be posting this on an open forum?

chrisyb

Ok it is obvious that you are (or think you are) a solicitor or involved in some way with the legal practice.

Firstly the details from the other solicitors were not passed or sent on to me relating to the supposed works carries out in 1968 and no consent so I was unaware until now I have the solicitors pack. This was a letter returned from the other solitors to ours.

Next, the buyers pack (completed by the buyer) states that work was carried out in 2000 and no consent. Yes I did have a copy of this at the time.

Next, the surveyor has insisted that the conveyencor gets the relevent approvals and paperwork relating to the attic and lounge. This did not happen. I am not the solicitor am I? I am a first time buyer and it is there responsibility to do the work on our behalf and for the mortgage company.

Next I had no report or letter from our conveyencor advising us that this could be an issue. (i have a copy of all correspondence).

Now, quite clearly I have stated the property IS a fire risk and is a danger due to the open plan nature and method of escape. This will and has been picked up by conveyencor/solicitor/ mortgage company and has lost me the sale as the proplems need to be resolved. To put it quite simply (again) the cost to carry out these works would be around 20k.

Now, had we known or (for your benefit) had it pointed out to us at the time by the solicitor, or if they had insisted on the docs (as per the requirements) then we would not have purchased the house and would not be in this situation. Surely you cant fail to identify that the solicitor has not carried out the requirements and as such have failed to provide duty of care to us.

OK will be talking to solicitor tomorrow but would love to hear your views in how the solicitors in question cannot be faulted.

edit: sorry for the anger I see your post has changed somewhat. I was never advised by the solicitor that these areas had not been certificated (including where it says chimney breast in 1996) and I never had anything nor was it sent advising me as to the consequences or about taking out insurance. Yes it was the general questionnaire that stated year 2000.

The buyers will not enter discussions, regardless of the policy because of the supposed fire safety aspects and structual concerns (which are slightly OTT).

chrisyb

I appreciate your help it's just the whole thing is getting to me!

I have the whole pack from the conveyencor and it is never pointed out tio us at all. The surveyor has specifically written in the report that the lawyer must gain approval from building regs for the loft and downstairs.

I can assure you that no consequences or anything else has been issued from the solicitor to us (i have the file, that is what I am going on). see edited post!

sonastin

chrisyb -timmyt has a terrible habit of telling you what DID happen based on an interpretation of what, in an ideal world, SHOULD happen. You were the one actually there in the solicitor's office and you have the correspondence in your hands so if you didn't have any of this brought to your attention then, regardless of whether timmyt thinks you should have had it, you probably didn't.

Unfortunately, the on thing timmyt did get right is how rarely it is clear cut. The reality of the situation, which is frequently only learnt with hindsight, is that legally it is entirely YOUR responsibility to find out what you need to know about a property. You can engage professionals to advise you on a) what you ought to be asking and b) what the answers mean but at the end of the day it becomes your call. A good solicitor will form a view on how experienced and knowledgable you are and if necessary, take you by the hand and guide you every step of the way, explaining the process and consequences as you go along. A poor / lazy solicitor will assume that you know what is going on, present you with the bare facts without explaining what they mean and leave you to deal with the consequences on the basis that you were given the information to make your own mind up. You might be left believing that everything is OK because the solicitor didn't tell you there was a problem but legally he might have told you what you needed to know to make your own mind up about whether the situation presented a problem and legally you are resposible for interpreting that information and choosing to go ahead even though you didn't know it at the time.

Negligence can be extremely difficult to prove. You will need evidence of exactly what information your solicitor made available to you and what, if any, explanation he gave along with it. You would also need to demonstrate that he owed you a particular duty of care to provide a more in-depth explanation related to how knowledgeable he knew you were at the time - you had as much duty to inform him that you were naive and needed hand-holding as he had in explaining things at a level where you would understand the implications.

If you can pull all that together and demonstrate that your solicitor effectively told you "I have checked everything that needs to be checked and there is no problem buying this property" then a claim is definitely worth pursuing. Beyond that, it comes down to a balance of how certain you are that the problem hasn't stemmed from you not understanding something you were told compared to how much the claim will cost to pursue and how much is to be gained if you succeed. At the end of the day, the majority of disputes aren't pursued through litigation because the amount at stake doesn't compare with the cost of claiming and the probability of succeeding.

Good luck, whichever way this goes.

DannyboyMidlands

It seems to me that:

1. The Surveyor has rightly suggested that consents for the work should be checked.
2. The sellers solicitor informed your solicitor who in turn informed you that there were none.
3. You didn't research the consequences and proceeded with the purchase.

I don't think that you can pin the blame on your solicitor. People knowingly buy property with faults all the time. I mean what house is perfect? It's not for the solicitor to decide on your behalf what you are comfortable with. At the end of the day, it was your decision.

chrisyb

It was our decision but this was very much based on the fact the property was checked out and everything was in good order. The only correspondence ever received relating to the building regs and related issues was a copy of the sellers information form, which the buyers said that work had been completed in 2000 and no approval granted.

Had the solicitor made us aware or even chased the relevent approvals, then we would not be in this position. At no point was it ever raised that there may be an issue regarding the works and building regs from our solicitor at the time.

Anyhow, spoke to a solicitor about the case who is going to reveiew it in more detail when they receieve the whole of the pack. They stated that we appear to have a strong case but will need to look at a diminution of value claim against that solicitor. I will know soon if they will undertake on a no win no fee type basis.

DannyboyMidlands

Everything wasn't in good order. The alterations had no consent and everybody knew it. Including you. There were no approvals to chase.

chrisyb

timmyt wrote: »

Strong case? Meaning he is starting to charge.

What you need to do is request a complete copy of the solicitors file. YOu can then see what you were sent,a nd what notes were taken of phone calls you had and may have forgotten after the passage of time.

Sonastin's theory could make him a clergyman :rotfl:

Thats what I have!