Original house builder approval for alterations – is this a scam or what?

Floppydog_3

We bought a new house 12 years ago. Hidden in the deeds is a statement that the builder needs to approve any alterations made to the house. Three years ago we built an extension, but had forgotten this statement in the deeds (we did get all other permissions – planning, building control etc). We are now selling our house and discovered this requirement. The original builder is no longer in business, and the firm was taken over by Shepherd Homes. I contacted them, to be told that we do need to check with them (there is no expiry date on this requirement) and the fee is £293.75!!

They have approved our extension retrospectively, but I am gobsmacked about this fee. The letter of approval was apparently posted on the day they received our cheque so it’s not as if it involved a lot of work. I can see why a builder may want to have restrictions on a site while they are still selling houses there – but 12 years later? When they weren’t even the original builders? It seems to me that this is just a cynical money-making scheme by house builders. Even the member of staff at Shepherd Homes said she couldn’t justify the cost.

What do other money savers think? Are other house builders as bad? Shouldn’t this scam be publicised more so that more people are aware of it?

barnaby-bear

Floppydog wrote: »

We bought a new house 12 years ago. Hidden in the deeds is a statement that the builder needs to approve any alterations made to the house. Three years ago we built an extension, but had forgotten this statement in the deeds (we did get all other permissions – planning, building control etc). We are now selling our house and discovered this requirement. The original builder is no longer in business, and the firm was taken over by Shepherd Homes. I contacted them, to be told that we do need to check with them (there is no expiry date on this requirement) and the fee is £293.75!!

They have approved our extension retrospectively, but I am gobsmacked about this fee. The letter of approval was apparently posted on the day they received our cheque so it’s not as if it involved a lot of work. I can see why a builder may want to have restrictions on a site while they are still selling houses there – but 12 years later? When they weren’t even the original builders? It seems to me that this is just a cynical money-making scheme by house builders. Even the member of staff at Shepherd Homes said she couldn’t justify the cost.

What do other money savers think? Are other house builders as bad? Shouldn’t this scam be publicised more so that more people are aware of it?

Our house is over 30 years old and the covenants meant the sellers had to do this a couple of years back - it's pretty standard - £300 for going back through records over 30 years old where company changed hands multiple times seemed reasonable. It's pretty clear in the deeds there are covenants so you must have known about them. You have chosen to apply for permission now because your buyer wants to know they can't be chased for your oversight. PEople do enforce very old covenants e.g. Glebe farms and chancels so it's just meeting enough requirements to cover buyers legally.

Simon_Legg

I’ve just been caught with exactly the same problem. We’re considering putting our house on the market, so I had a quick flick through the original sale documents and found a similar clause. We have a modest conservatory on the back of the house, which already has a certificate of lawfulness issued by the local planning authority. Despite this, we still required permission from the original builders!
I’ve now had to pay £125+VAT for a standard letter that says the builder has no objection to the addition of the conservatory!
In some respects I can understand the requirement for permission from the original builders. Particularly on the Front elevation of properties. The last thing you want is badly erected 6ft fences in open plan areas, bright yellow brick walls (when everything else is built in red brick) etc etc. Not everything is subject to planning, so you need something to gate these potential eyesores and protect the integrity of the original plan - which in our case is what attracted us to the development in the first place.
However, I believe the issue is with the cost. From my personal experience there was little effort on the part of the builder to provide this permission. They didn’t ask for a copy of the plans, they didn’t ask for pictures, they didn’t visit the property personally. They asked for a copy of the certificate of lawful build and the cheque. That was it! Clearly their only effort was to print the standard letter and stick a stamp on the envelope. That cannot in any way justify a charge of £125+VAT. But nevertheless I stumped up the money as it would (without a doubt) be picked by the solicitors of any potential purchaser.
That said, I’m now (politely I emphasise) exacting my revenge. I’m in the process of exchanging letters with the builders, the first of which thanked them for promptly issuing the permission, but also requested that for the sake of understanding the service I’ve just purchased ‘from them’, they provide me with a breakdown of the £125 administration charge! Now they’re squirming like you would not believe!
Their first reply stated that this was their standard admin charge, which all their customers are subject to under these circumstances. I pointed out to them in a response (again politely) that wasn’t exactly the answer to the question I’d asked, and could they please provide the full breakdown that substantiates the charge.
Since then I’ve exchanged further 2 letters and received equally feeble responses. So now I’m moving into ‘hard ball’ mode with the last (recorded delivery) letter stating that I’m getting very concerned that they do not appear to be in a position to substantiate the charge and I’m therefore taking legal advise in advance of receiving their response!
We all now know that the banks cannot justify their charges, it seems that my builders can’t either!!! A lot of hassle perhaps for £125. But oh am I having fun!

Jonbvn

I think most (big) builders include such covenants on the houses they build. I believe they do it to just make sure nobody makes changes which they consider are ugly and/or unsafe. After all no builder wants a bad reputation.

1jim

Jonbvn wrote: »

I think most (big) builders include such covenants on the houses they build. I believe they do it to just make sure nobody makes changes which they consider are ugly and/or unsafe. After all no builder wants a bad reputation.

But do they really care after they have moved on and to be honest noone really expects a development to look the same 20-30years after completion, it really does seem a moneymaking opportunity

Floppydog_3

Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm sure our original solicitor mentioned the covenant, but it was a long time ago, and we'd just forgotten about it. A straw poll of our neighbours, most of whom have added something to their homes over the years, shows that it's an unwelcome surprise to them too...

My concern is the cost. It seems to be far higher than others have been charged (talking to colleagues at work today, other builders have charged £50-£150, which I still think is high). Our builders sent us what is obviously a standard letter on the same day they recieved ours, without requesting any further information at all. I doubt if this involved more than 10 minutes work.

I love Simon Legg's response, and will write a similar letter to our builder. Thank you for this! I'll let you know if I get any joy...

tincat

I think it's a bit silly to argue over it personally - trying to make them justify the fee. They own a legal right, and personally I think you should be counting your lucky stars they're not charging more.

Besides, you've already paid. If you were going to complain you should have done so before you paid. Oh wait.... they might not have granted the permission then...

I don't think they have anything to fear from your letters complaining after the fact I'm afraid.

Running_Horse

Could have been worse. They could have refused permission and asked for the extension to be demolished. One 1970s house we looked at would have required an insurance policy in case the defunct builders didn't like the conservatory. Such are the legal complexities of buying a house (we had to pay £60 for a chancel liability that might not even exist).

beedeedee

On one of the estates that we purchased a bungalow, the builders had put in a clause about garden sheds needing permission from them as well. Beware!
I always though it was only enforceable for ten years though?

frannyann

When I bought my house, we had to ask permission from builder if we ever wanted a to build a shed or similar, but we were told the contact was only between the orginal purchaser and builder. Therefore it would not apply to the subsequent owners.

Think you should argue the charge though, that seems very excessive.

SpampMan

Builders write these restrictive covenants into the title deeds so that the development has a tidy uniform appearance which helps them to sell. Other common examples are to keep an open plan frontage and no boats, caravans, commercial vehicles, businesses, bees, fowls & pigs.
Once the development is complete, the developer really couldn't give a stuff as it costs money to enforce a covenant and there is no longer any benefit to be obtained. They are, however, pleased to receive an administration fee to give permission for alterations about which they couldn't care less. When you come to sell, if you don't already have permission, you may find that the buyers solicitor will insist on an indemnity policy or retrospective permission.