No viewings in a month - "illegal" loft conversion

DRP

JQ. wrote: »

But the reason that creates an issue for the OP is that their house is then listed as a 1 bed house on Rightmove. Most people looking for a 2 bed house will "filter" out 1 bedders on Rightmove, so they won't even see this house. And this is exactly the reason the EA has said the lounge is a bedroom.

ah yes good point!

chappers

martinsurrey wrote: »

All insurance policies have conditions that all work was done to the relevant building standards in force at the time of the work.

This conversion hasn’t.

Are you sure you didn't just make that up, I have just had a look at my policy and the nearest , it comes is to say that, all major works to the property must be notified to the insurers.
Nothing about historic works.
They can't ask you to make unreasonable declerations(wheter stated or infered), especially about things which you have no knowledge of; for example it would be unreasonable for me to know if an extension done in say the 60's, many owners prior to my owning the house, a)was granted building regs or b) what the current regs were at the time, there are provisions within the industry which prevent insurers from unreasonably denying insurance in this way.
Lacking knowledge of something you wouldn't reasonably be expected to know is not negligence.

If a fire started in the loft from a hairdryer, in what was obviously used as a bedroom, ingites the floor(or something on it), which then ignites the new loft lining (which needs regs approval as a thermal element), this causes the roof to give way faster than it should which makes the loft joists fail faster than they should, and the fire go unnoticed longer than it should (no interlinked fire alarms at a guess), which makes the whole house fall down, the insurance company would say it’s your own fault that the damage is as bad as it is, due to negligence of not following building regs, claim denied, or at least very much reduced.

That is not how it works, the insurers would have to prove negligence and failure on your part, they would have to prove that the building wasn't of satisfactory construction. building regs is not the be all and end all. Insurance claims are settled individually on their own merits.
Motor insurers fought for about 20 years to make it law that not having an MOT certificate invalidated insurance and that was for something that was under the control of the insured person.

propertyman

martin is right in terms of the building insurance policy, but we are talking about an Indemnity policy.

:money:A typical policy is based on a lack of evidence that consent was obtained and therefore if a notice is served then it would cover the cost of
altering, demolishing or reinstating the property,
the reduction in the value,
costs and expenses of consent.

A purchaser would be wise to check that the work was done adequately though. :eek:

propertyman

I still think the best option is send the kids/other room users off to the outlaws/out and dress the house and have it re photographed. No reason why the listing has to say I bed 2 receps. and not Family Cottage, and detail, lounge dining room kitchen diner master bed loft room x by y ft with velux windows ( currently used as a bedroom) family bathroom etc.

martinsurrey

chappers wrote: »

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Are you sure you didn't just make that up, I have just had a look at my policy and the nearest , it comes is to say that, all major works to the property must be notified to the insurers.

I picked a random company and looked at their terms and conditions

http://www.privilege.com/home-insurance/policy.htm

“
But not the following:
• Loss or damage caused by:
− the sea or river wearing away the land;
− the buildings being demolished, altered or
having structural repairs carried out;
− faulty design of, faulty workmanship on or
faulty materials used in the buildings.
“

In court (if it got that far), the insurance company would use the fact that building regs give a safe design constraint for a property and that by not following them makes a design faulty. You would have to prove that breaking them is not faulty, which would be a massive job.

While you’re right that no building regs doesn’t mean its wrong, it is a good indication.

No interlinked alarm would point to faulty design which increased the risk of catastrophic damage - claim denied (or at least reduced). Incorrect/no fire doors - same, incorrectly specified joists - same.

It makes no mention of when the work was done, or who did it, which is why its important that you make sure that you know what you are buying! Which you should have done when you purchased the house, and not finding out could be argued as negligent.

JimmyTheWig

propertyman wrote: »

I still think the best option is send the kids/other room users off to the outlaws/out and dress the house and have it re photographed. No reason why the listing has to say I bed 2 receps. and not Family Cottage, and detail, lounge dining room kitchen diner master bed loft room x by y ft with velux windows ( currently used as a bedroom) family bathroom etc.

And do you think this is how it should be marketted, even though it means it wouldn't come up when someone searched for a property with a minimum of two bedrooms?

chappers

martinsurrey wrote: »

I picked a random company and looked at their terms and conditions

http://www.privilege.com/home-insurance/policy.htm

“
But not the following:
• Loss or damage caused by:
− the sea or river wearing away the land;
− the buildings being demolished, altered or
having structural repairs carried out;
− faulty design of, faulty workmanship on or
faulty materials used in the buildings.
“

In court (if it got that far), the insurance company would use the fact that building regs give a safe design constraint for a property and that by not following them makes a design faulty. You would have to prove that breaking them is not faulty, which would be a massive job.

While you’re right that no building regs doesn’t mean its wrong, it is a good indication.

No interlinked alarm would point to faulty design which increased the risk of catastrophic damage - claim denied (or at least reduced). Incorrect/no fire doors - same, incorrectly specified joists - same.

It makes no mention of when the work was done, or who did it, which is why its important that you make sure that you know what you are buying! Which you should have done when you purchased the house, and not finding out could be argued as negligent.

All very interesting and essentially what an insurance company will say, but whether thats how it works out in practice is another matter.
I was actually arguing from some experience.
a friend of mine made an insurance claim for some storm damage to an "extension" to his house which had been done at least 6 years previous as it was there when he purchased the property. The underwriters came out and wrote back to him stating that they weren't going to pay out all of his claim as they didn't think the extension was upto standard and therefore wasn't substantially part of the house.
His solicitor eventually got them to pay out as he claimed that my friend couldn't resonably have known that the extension was defective, since it contained his kitchen and bathroom and therefore they couldn't claim that he had mislead them when taking out his insurance..
I will be seening my brother-in -law this weekend he is an insurance actuary will ask his opinion

propertyman

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

And do you think this is how it should be marketted, even though it means it wouldn't come up when someone searched for a property with a minimum of two bedrooms?

Its an unusual layout and accommodation and as the lounge is used as bed 2 which is perfectly legal, and the loft room could be called a reception room, which is perfectly legal, then it could be described as two bed two receps in the search summary with a detailed explanation of the exact layout in the particulars.

Trying to find a solution for the poor lady not pedantic problems.....

propertyman

martinsurrey wrote: »

I picked a random company and looked at their terms and conditions

But Martin we are not talking about a buildings insurance policy but a stand alone indemnity policy.....

For £200 annd a lot of time they could build a stud and plaster wall and fit a door to the loft and resolve the issue, and as the plans aren't clear even a bi fold door at the base of the stairs.

martinsurrey

propertyman wrote: »

But Martin we are not talking about a buildings insurance policy but a stand alone indemnity policy.....

For £200 annd a lot of time they could build a stud and plaster wall and fit a door to the loft and resolve the issue, and as the plans aren't clear even a bi fold door at the base of the stairs.

you are right, the buildings insurance was brought into it as a side effect of no building regs many posts ago, and seems to have hijacked the thread, no more posts from me about it, I think I've made the risks clear.