Dream home has no building regs for loft conversion - please help!

Errata

housebuyer77 wrote: »

- all the work was done in 2005 !

If all the work was done in 2005, what does this mean

This could mean a planning breach of course but as its more than 4 years later it is immune from that.

chickaroonee

Pull out completely and lose my 'dream house'.

Are you a builder or engineer? What on earth does the fact that it looks "mint" have to do with its structural integrity? I'm being serious here, not having a go.

No decent builder would forego building regs on their house, they, more than anyone, would know that it makes it virtually unsaleable.

But leaving that aside I think you're missing the most fundamental point here - building regs are not a small little detail that aren't really important. They're about safety. Personally I care about that more than whether something looks "mint" or not.

Everyone here is telling you you are crazy but you don't want to listen, so why did you post?

lessonlearned

Pull out completely and lose my 'dream house'.

housebuyer77 wrote: »

I hear what posters are saying but it still seems crazy to me to take my £600k and buy a fusty unmodernised house in the area with less floor space and no wow factor, all because of a loft with no certificate! I would never aldso be able to obtain open plan space of this kind with other houses - the area is 36' x 19' which is huge. I didn't comment on the location either, which is semi-rural with open fields at the end of the lane vs estate locations for competing houses.

You might "hear" what posters are saying but clearly you are not listening.

You have obviously made up your mind that it is the house for you.

Many of us are in agreement, you are taking a huge risk and are in serious danger of getting your fingers burnt.

The decision is yours........

Yorkie1

Pull out completely and lose my 'dream house'.

He got PP and prelim B Regs approval on the basis of the plans he submitted.

But he didn't then build to those plans.

So you don't know whether what has been built, is in fact safe or acceptable?

somethingcorporate

Pull out completely and lose my 'dream house'.

That sounds like a really poor reason for not getting it done by the book and certainly not compelling enough for you to risk the lives of your family and £600k on.

You've asked a bunch of disinterested parties and have been given an overwhelming response that you should avoid like the plague.

If you didn't want opinions you didn't want to hear you should have left the run a mile option from your poll - the response should tell you something loud and clear.

We've lost 2-3 "dream" houses in the past - there will always be others.

paddy's_mum

Pull out completely and lose my 'dream house'.

ToasterScheme wrote: »

"it's all to building regs except..."

No doubt this vendor is the same chap who says that his wife has a slight touch of pregnancy!

housebuyer77_2

lessonlearned wrote: »

You might "hear" what posters are saying but clearly you are not listening.

You have obviously made up your mind that it is the house for you.

Many of us are in agreement, you are taking a huge risk and are in serious danger of getting your fingers burnt.

The decision is yours........

OK thank you everyone for your honest opinions. I'm not closed minded to your views; I just wanted to 'stress test' them with my counter argument and see if all the evidence we have changes ppl's initial views. It seems it does not and the house is a big risk.

I am going to write to the vendor tonight and challenge him on the lack of certs for all the fixtures, as well as clarify the involvement of building control. I will judge from his responses my next move and will of course let you know what we decide to do!

One final thing I would say - many on here say that the fire risk is the big one and that I would be putting my family at risk. But how do you respond to the fact that so many older properties out there do not meet regs for even ground and first floor accommodation, and so many loft conversions out there that are old, passed regs at the time or did not need them, but are far more dangerous than this one?

I mean, with 3 velux escape windows and a staircase that leads direct to a 1st floor exit window, I am still struggling to see why that is so inherently dangerous compared to, say, a house I saw the other day which was a 3 bed with a 'bonus loft room' which clearly in no way met regs but would no doubt be used in some way if you owned the house! And yet if you declare it as a loft room no one would be panicking like they are with this place!

lessonlearned

Pull out completely and lose my 'dream house'.

A loft room is not a designated sleeping room - it is a storage room ergo the risk of fire is deemed less important.

Anyone using a loft room without regs as sleeping accommodation is taking a huge risk.

Re your point regarding older conversions not meeting current regulations.

Indeed they don't. They are deemed unsafe - that is why Building Regs for loft conversions were introduced ......

phoebe1989seb

lessonlearned wrote: »

A loft room is not a designated sleeping room - it is a storage room ergo the risk of fire is deemed less important.

Anyone using a loft room without regs as sleeping accommodation is taking a huge risk.

Re your point regarding older conversions not meeting current regulations.

Indeed they don't. They are deemed unsafe - that is why Building Regs for loft conversions were introduced ......

I quite agree Lesson - but, playing Devil's Advocate here, what about houses such as mine that are over 200 years old, thatched and three storey with two *bedrooms* on the third (attic) floor?

We have no fire doors and no *proper* hallway separating the lower flight of stairs from a reception room. Whilst there are five windows in the recently re-thatched roof, there is no way - I'm sure - that this would meet current building regs.......

Is it unsafe? Quite possibly.....but then so must hundreds of similar period properties be. People still buy and live in them though

Regarding the OP's *dream house* - it's way too open plan for me.......and although we've recently created something similar with our large kitchen extension, I would expect at least one separate sitting room (personally we chose to retain three), but personal preferences aside I can see why the OP is drawn to the property. Like other posters, I do feel it's the presentation (along with the aga and other high spec fixtures) that's attracting them and blinding them to the potential pitfalls.

Most importantly I would be very wary of trusting the vendor with regards to not getting the work signed off and a little sceptical of his claims to have spent £200k on the work. As someone that's renovated a few properties and know how costs soon rack up, I would however assume a builder with his connections in the trade would have a far lower total spend......

lessonlearned

Pull out completely and lose my 'dream house'.

The house that I am buying with the boys have something similar, two bedrooms on a second floor. As you know it is a Grade II listed building so obviously no fire escape can be fitted. However the staircase is enclosed and does have a separating door.

I appreciate that there are older buildings that in no way conform to current building regs, whether it be attic rooms or any other number of issues in regards to construction methods, layouts etc.

No I think the main concern here is just generally most people who have commented to the OP's dilemma is the general feeling that they get.

Why would a builder of all people not put in building regs on his own property. It is inconceivable that he didn't know they were required. In fact I got the impression that he originally submitted plans, got them passed and then deviated from those plans.

My friend's husband is a builder and a very good one. For some strange reason he bought a house, rather than building his own. He then decided to make some alterations.

Fast forward a few years he decided it was time to move, put the house on the market and realised that he had "forgotten" to apply for regs. No problem, he applied retrospectively, job done.

My understanding is this won't be possible in this case because the builder has contravened regs not merely "forgotten" them.

The other issue here is the claim that he has spent £200k. I think that is doubtful.

It is a nice house without question, attractively decorated and well presented, some very pretty furniture and yes some very nice fixtures and fittings.

Unfortunately - despite all the gee-gaws, I don't think the surveyor is going to give it a high enough valuation, firstly because of the loft room issue but also because Agas and TV's do not add value to the structure.

I think the OP has fallen in love with the house and has been somewhat seduced by it's gloss and glamour. What's needed is for the Op to step back a little and mentally strip it out of it's furniture, toys and gizmos. Then they need to work out how much it will cost to comply with current regs because without that resale may prove extremely difficult.

The other worry I would have is, if the builder/vendor has so blatantly flaunted regs over the loft issue who is to say what else he has overlooked.