Building Regs Problem

forevergrey

We are in the early stages of buying a house that had an extension about 15 years ago, before the current owners purchased.

Discussions with the vendors seem to indicate that they didn't inherit any paperwork or certificates for building regulations. There was an application for planning permission.

We indicated our concerns to the EA, who having contacted the local authority building control, have told us that the various stages were complied with, but not finally signed off. The LA will supply a letter to this effect for the appropriate fee.

We're still concerned that this is not a completion certificate and whether this will present a problem in future should we decide to sell.

Any views please?

silvercar

If the extension has been in place for 15 years, the council cannot ask for any work to be done or changes made. If you are satisfied (from your surveyor) with the standard of the work done, there should be no problem.

to obtain sign off now, rather than 15 years ago, the seller would have to bring work to current standards rather than those in force at the time. This may be prohibitively expensive.

mrsc_4

This comes up frequently on this board and I've told my story many times LOL.

We completed on a converted bungalow in December it had a loft conversion into 2 bedrooms and a single storey rear extension, like your purchase this was done before by the previous owners, the work was done in 1979 and 1980. In the early stages we discovered there was no planning permission so therefore no building regs, we went ahead with the purchase after I had lengthly consultations with our surveyor at work.

Our Vendor took out an indemnity insurance which covers us should the LA want to knock on the door and tear it down, they can't because it was done such a long time ago (before I was born), many properties in the area have simular conversions and extensions anyhow.

The standard of work is something the indemnity insurance won't cover however and we only had a valuation done we were happy with that as well. The work on our house wouldn't meet building regs now anyhow as they have changed so much over the years, and unless the walls and floor we're torn back and we had a sull structual survey nothing would have been picked up in the homebuyers that wasn't picked up in the valuation anyway. Incidentally there is a RSJ which is ressauring.

Anyway the point to my story is don't lose heart if you love the house I'd stick with it, personally we don't plan to sell for a very long time if ever but we were worried about these issues cropping up if we did but I'll deal with that then.

Good luck don't let it put you off, I love our new house

forevergrey

Thank you both for your replies.

The standard of the work seems to be ok, our concern was with potential problems should we need to sell, knowing that solicitors can be like a dog with a bone on these issues.

MJMum

---

Richard_Webster

The standard of the work seems to be ok, our concern was with potential problems should we need to sell, knowing that solicitors can be like a dog with a bone on these issues.

Yes, and I wish that we didn't have to do this. Trouble is that mortgage lenders require us to check this kind of thing and there are some over neurotic buyers out there who insist we get it all completely right.

What I find annoying is that we have to go to great lengths to check out work done quite recently to check it meets certain standards, when in a lot of cases it will probably have been done to a much higher standard than parts of the original construction, which might be much more suspect from a structural or safety point of view, if built many years ago.

For instance, a lot of old houses, particularly in Northern towns, have a very steep set of stairs to a loft bedroom that has probably been used as such for 100 years - wouldn't meet modern fire requirements for a loft conversion, but nobody seems to be very bothered about that!

As a conveyancing solicitor I believe the information given in the post to be useful but I accept no liability except to fee-paying clients.

forevergrey

Point taken Richard - perhaps it would have been fairer for me to have said 'lenders' rather than 'solicitors'

As you are at the coalface, do you see particular resell issues with this? We don't require a mortgage so not an issue for us, but would we have a problem with a future buyer and their lender?

jimthejimjim

I'm just in the process of purchasing a house with similar issues and the seller has had to get an indemnity policy for the work.

Doozergirl

Apart from the fact that an indemnity policy is useless after 15 years as the LA can't persue you, an indemnity policy is invalid if you contact the LA on the issue.

However, I'm quite reassured that at least Building Control were out inspecting the work, just a shame they didn't get sign off. As Richard Webster has mentioned, it is likely that the extension is better built than the original house. Have it surveyed and if that is okay, get on with buying it! The letter regarding building inspections will help when you come to sell but the majority of people, once things are explained by a professional, should be happy to go ahead with the purchase.

Debt_Free_Chick

Richard_Webster wrote:

Yes, and I wish that we didn't have to do this. Trouble is that mortgage lenders require us to check this kind of thing and there are some over neurotic buyers out there who insist we get it all completely right.

And provided the lender is satisfied, then it's down to the buyer. The buyer need only listen to what their solicitor & surveyor tells them and then make a decision.

Advisers will not generally "tell you what to do" and if pressed, they are likely to err on the side of caution - understandable, as so many seem keen to "sue someone" for what was an error of judgment on their own (buyer's) part.

If we think about this, if every house in the country that has ever had any development of any kind is vetoed for lack of paperwork, then we shall soon have a stock of unsellable houses. Now that would be crazy, given that we have plenty of houses still standing after 100, 200, 300 and more years. None of them with "the relevant paperwork" :rolleyes:

forevergrey

Thank you everyone for replies to date.

Debt_Free_Chick.. your comment '...provided the lender is satisfied' is the point I'm trying to nail down. Would the lender of a prospective future buyer refuse to offer a mortgage in these circumstances?