Regularisation certificate or indemnity policy?

dawn_uk

Good morning all,

The vendors of the house we're buying don't have completion certificates for building works carried out to their property in the early 90s. They sought planning permission, which was approved, but their solicitor didn't clarify whether they've misplaced the certificates or if they ever got them at all, he just stated that they wouldn't be supplying any further paperwork relating to the works. The works in question are a double height extension and alterations to rooms in the loft (it's a chalet) which all appear to be sound. Our mortgage valuation came back OK, although we didn't have a structural survey.

In addition, before they decided to move, the vendors actually got planning permission approved for the addition of a basement floor with substantial alterations to the ground and first floors, so presumably the council are aware of the alterations which have already taken place to the property.

We have opted for a regularisation certificate but haven't heard back yet if the vendors have any issues with this. However I'm now wondering if we should have opted for an indemnity policy instead. With the latter our main concern was what would happen if we decided to sell the property in the future, or if we decided to get works done ourselves; we certainly didn't want to set ourselves up for a fall and figured a regularisation certificate would make sure everything was as it should be.

I have no idea how long applications for regularisation certificates take (we were hoping to move soon, by November at the latest to get our son into a good local school), or how intrusive they are (our solicitor warned us about stripping back, etc.). That's assuming the vendors are happy to get the certificate of course.

Any advice is greatly appreciated!

pmlindyloo

Since the work has been carried out such a long time ago then personally I would have opted for indemnity insurance. These insurances only cover you in the case of the council taking action (most unlikely because of the length of time) and not for the cost of any remedial work. They are mostly asked for by mortgage lenders/solicitors who seem unaware of the rules and regulations.

Regularisation certificates can be a minefield and although the works done would only have to conform with the building regulations in place at the time they could require all kinds of invasive work.

It is unlikely that the extension has any major faults but if it were me I would have opted for an indemnity insurance and a full structural survey (just to be on the safe side).

If the vendors refuse to have the regularisation done then you could go this route.

moneyistooshorttomention

I think the purpose of indemnities (from what I can see) is to protect against someone suing you (Council or anyone else that shows an inclination to), rather than to cover cost of work on a place.

Yorkie1

Indemnities protect you against the cost of the council enforcing compliance. After this length of time the council is, I think, prevented from enforcing compliance. But lenders like them!

Indemnities provide absolutely no guarantee about the quality of the work done. A full structural survey won't be able to answer this either, in the absence of any B Regs certificates. They won't be able to tell in the survey whether the foundations were done to the correct depth etc, or whether there's any issues higher up.