Wall removed with no building regulations

bclark

Fire_Fox wrote: »

You appear to have taken half a sentence of Dannyboy's post in isolation and ascribed your own meaning. Nobody has suggested a certificate or lack thereof is a guarantee of anything, simply that the OP should not be "sure the work has been done soundly".



If it was the outside toilet it would still have been separated from the house by a wall, the door would have been in the back yard/ garden. A stud wall would not have kept any heat in. It might have been the scullery but again would not have been open as it is now.

I didn't say it was an outside toilet though, it was the houses bathroom which was and is downstairs. This is not unusual in Victorian houses and would likely be totally original, my first house and many I have been in are exactly the same.

As for the first bit my point is that a lack of building regs does not mean there is anything wrong with the work at all, it just means they haven't followed the correct process.

notanewuser

bclark wrote: »

I am not sure thats true actually, it looks like the back portion would have been original as thats where the bathroom would always have been.

Not the case in any of the 200 or so Victorian terraced houses I've ever been in. They weren't called "2up 2downs" for nothing!!!

Fire_Fox

bclark wrote: »

I didn't say it was an outside toilet though, it was the houses bathroom which was and is downstairs. This is not unusual in Victorian houses and would likely be totally original, my first house and many I have been in are exactly the same.

No you didn't: I suggested it was either an outside toilet or a scullery, tiny Victorian terraces did not have the luxury of a whole room dedicated to bathing. Some larger middle class houses did have indoor bathrooms with running water during the Victorian era, but working class folks had a tin bath in front of the fire and an outside sh1thouse well into the 20th Century.

Fire_Fox

emma_spaghetti wrote: »

I am quite confident of what their response will be so its just whether or not they are prepared to lose the sale. With 16 years estate agency experience, I have to say it is rare that there is sufficient paper work to cover these issues, particularly when they have been done over so many years, hence why they have the indemnity insurance to resolve them. I do not think the vendor will be prepared to pay for something that was not an issue when he bought the property.

Is an alternative option to have a builder over to assess the work, convifm (hopefully) it's all legit, then take out Indemnity Insurance to cover us if the Council were to intervene?

Estate agents responsibilities are changing, it's getting to the stage they need to declare to future buyers anything that might prevent a sale going through. Maybe link the agent to this story (credit to tbs624 for finding it)
http://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/news_features/Landmark-case-over-property-description-to-set-precedent
Remember the estate agent does not work for you they work for the vendor, and they only get paid if they push this sale through. They likely don't give a monkey's whether you get the bargain of the century or a death trap.

What do you imagine a builder can assess when it is plastered over? AFAIK there is no way of knowing what supports are in place without exposing what is underneath. Again "indemnity only covers you financially, it doesn't address every issue associated with that from the risk of permanent injury or death, the upheaval and stress of having lost your home or camping somewhere else".

bclark

Fire_Fox wrote: »

No you didn't: I suggested it was either an outside toilet or a scullery, tiny Victorian terraces did not have the luxury of a whole room dedicated to bathing. Some larger middle class houses did have indoor bathrooms with running water during the Victorian era, but working class folks had a tin bath in front of the fire and an outside sh1thouse well into the 20th Century.

Yes I did, I said it was a bathroom and not an outside toilet. Actually plenty of Victorian houses had a bathroom, it was a long era and they did have plumbing and running water in many houses by the end.

That set up looks like many Victorian houses and the wall removed is not necessarily the back wall to the house as originally suggested. The real truth is that we don't know for certain without knowing more about the house, I am sure that you may want to continue talking in absolutes though.

Fire_Fox

bclark wrote: »

Yes I did, I said it was a bathroom and not an outside toilet. Actually plenty of Victorian houses had a bathroom, it was a long era and they did have plumbing and running water in many houses by the end.

That set up looks like many Victorian houses and the wall removed is not necessarily the back wall to the house as originally suggested. The real truth is that we don't know for certain without knowing more about the house, I am sure that you may want to continue talking in absolutes though.

You seem to be disputing what you think people mean not what they are actually posting so it's a pointless discussion. I don't disagree some Victorian houses had running water by the end of the era I said "tiny Victorian terraces did not have the luxury of a whole room dedicated to bathing."

emma_spaghetti

kandg wrote: »

Hi

We have just had the exact same job done in our Victorian end terrace. Our first builder ( who we let go before work commenced) never mentioned building regs at all to us. The second builder told us we would def need building regs. We paid about £200 for structural engineer to do the calcs and then the council £180 to come out, check cals and once the work had been done sign it off. Apparently you can get it signed off but they will need to knock all the plaster off to see the steel that was put in and to check the clas were right. Thats what we were told anyway!
It wouldnt put me off buying but I am sure if you rung the planning dept of the council theyll tell you what steps you can take, they must come up with this issue a lot
Good luck

Thanks for your help! Did you have to get the plaster chipped off in your circumstance, to check the measurements?

kandg

Hi

We did actually go through the proper process. Our builder explained the implications if we had have gone with the first builder who was going to do it without building regs. Thats when we were told all the plaster would have had to come off so they could see the beam and do the cals. I am glad we discovered this and got the work done properly. If you really like the property and the current owners are prepared to have this work done for you then you could negotiate on price for you to replaster/decorate etc. Your floorplan is pretty much the same as ours, it was a load baring wall.