Roof terrace not actually a roof terrace

propertyman

silvercar wrote: »

They would only have to comply with the regulations in force at the time the terrace was made there is no retrospective obligation to comply with today's building regs. .

Sadly thats not the point and wrong.

At that time say 1994 the B regs would have required enclosure of at least 1.25 metres.

Even if say the area dated back the 1960s, the landlord has an overiding requirement at all times to ensure that it is safe to use which would require that the edge is enclosed or inaccesssible.


Thats very important. If the freeholder said "Ok use it" that means for a very large service charge bill to enclose it :eek:


Clearly fern 123 unless
- the area is
-collectively residents can claim to have acquired the rights over 20 years
then you risk

- losing the right and the effect on value
- a big bill to make it safe to use

propertyman

Yorkie1 wrote: »

I'd be concerned about whether the roof of the roof terrace is strong enough to bear the weight of residents using it as a communal roof terrace ... irrespective of whether B Regs may / may not have been complied with, how do you know it's safe?

Let alone the cost of repairing a roof surface not meant for traffic and point loads of "fat people on deck chairs" or high heels

Fern123

Thanks very much to everyone for their advice.

I have a photo of the terrace which may help give an idea. I'm afraid I can't post links as a new user but if you copy and paste into your browser tinypic and then .com/r/4zxch3/5

Thank you for taking the time to look at the picture.

I should add also that this is the only property of this type in the road, the rest are two storey houses. It's also a conservation area.

In hindsight I feel so naive for not realising it would not have the required permissions, but we have viewed properties where the "roof terrace" was not included in the marketing material, and the agent told us it wasn't legally one. With this property, it is included in the marketing material.

pinkshoes

Fern123 wrote: »

Thanks very much to everyone for their advice.

I have a photo of the terrace which may help give an idea. I'm afraid I can't post links as a new user but if you copy and paste into your browser tinypic and then .com/r/4zxch3/5

Thank you for taking the time to look at the picture.

I should add also that this is the only property of this type in the road, the rest are two storey houses. It's also a conservation area.

In hindsight I feel so naive for not realising it would not have the required permissions, but we have viewed properties where the "roof terrace" was not included in the marketing material, and the agent told us it wasn't legally one. With this property, it is included in the marketing material.

Here:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=4zxch3&s=5

Fern123

Could I also add an additional question to this thread?

If it's confirmed by our solicitor that we don't have right of access to the terrace, then I think we will resubmit our offer based on what we think the value of the property is without outside space.

If this is refused and we have to pull out of the purchase, could we class this as misrepresentation of sale?

The marketing material states "There is a communal roof terrace and additional loft storage" (the loft is only accessible via the terrace), and also shows a picture of the terrace, but it does not specifically state "There is access to a communal roof terrace" so I wonder if they have covered themselves here? Does including a picture of outdoor space on the marketing material allow you to assume you would have access to it?

moneyistooshorttomention

Looking at the surface of that roof terrace, it rather looks to me as if the flat roof covering extends a few inches up the side of those chimneys. If that is the case, then I'd think it would be roof felt and definitely not suitable to walk on regularly.

The height of those walls would put me off using it as a roof terrace anyway, but I can understand why some people would want to.

If I were you, I'd get in a darn good look at that roof surface and see if it is, as it looks, the same surface continuing up those chimneys.

The fact that something is included in an EA details doesn't necessarily mean that it will be part of what you pay for. My own EA put something in the details that wont be being left with the house on the one hand, whilst not mentioning my carpets (which will be left) on the other hand. I think there's usually some disclaimer in the small print on those details that "what you see isn't necessarily what you get".

After all, look at how many photos of houses often include a field or park or something nearby, but you don't get that included in the price, and then of course the very basic point that furniture in the photos isn't included in the price.

Fern123

Thank you money. That's a good point about furniture being in photos and not being included in the sale.

But if something is listed in the blurb as being part of the property for sale (whether it's outdoor space, a garage, a parking space, etc) and that forms part of your decision to offer on the property, but when you go through the legal process you find the vendor isn't actually able to offer that to you, is that not misrepresentation of sale?

pretamang

I recognise that photo, if it's the same building I think it is then I would have thought roof access will make a difference to the price.

Can you keep us updated on any developments? I have a potentially similar situation. Bought a flat with no roof access/terrace, although the neighbours insist the previous owners did have a hatch and invited them up to roof all the time. I'm trying to look into why this was blocked up as there was no mention of it when I bought the flat; I suspect it was done to sell it without causing any building regs problems that may have been ignored. If I find anything out that's helpful to your situation I'll post in here.

propertyman

There is clearly a degree of misrepresentation however it is not deliberate as the items on the roof would suggest it is being used as such.

The walls are barely 2 foor and are too low to be safely used.

The roof surface is asphalt which is harder wearing than most surfaces but is open to damage from deck chair point loads.

It is correct that it is dressed up the walls as you can see in order to create a waterproof detail to at least 15omm, two brick high here and tucked in to the gap- its called an upstand.

Given that the fillets at the base are a sharp 45 degrees and there are no signs of patching, and the pointing to the bricks looks recentish, I would inpsect on a close inspection to believe it woud be in good order. There is an area which has slumped which needs attention.

Ideally it should have been treated with a solar reflective paint to prolong its life.

jaybeetoo

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Looking at the surface of that roof terrace, it rather looks to me as if the flat roof covering extends a few inches up the side of those chimneys. If that is the case, then I'd think it would be roof felt and definitely not suitable to walk on regularly.

I agree.

Did your surveyor look at the roof?