No buildings regs for roof, would you complete?

phill99

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Solicitors represent the lender. In addition they are covering their own backsides. So not stupid or ignorant.

They show their ignorance due to their lack of knowledge about building regs. If the replacement was pre 1997, building regs as they are, wont come into play. If a solicitor knew the regs, he wouldn't be selling an indemnity policy. So, sorry, they are ignorant and express a level of stupidity in their actions.

LLizz

Just an update for any future me's who may come across this thread needing an answer to something similar...

We decided to get out a roofer and also consult the guy who did our report once again. Both of other thoughts married and both are content that the roof is of a sound structure and is holding the weight of the tiles well. Roofer states that when the tiles were put on it looks as if they also had purlins put in to better support/distribute the weight and all looks sound and in good condition.
The only thing mentioned to us was ventilation up there, but the roofer said it was a doddle of a job and just means changing a few tiles for ones that let air though

So we're going ahead and are happy.

kiddakidda

LLizz wrote: »

Just an update for any future me's who may come across this thread needing an answer to something similar...

We decided to get out a roofer and also consult the guy who did our report once again. Both of other thoughts married and both are content that the roof is of a sound structure and is holding the weight of the tiles well. Roofer states that when the tiles were put on it looks as if they also had purlins put in to better support/distribute the weight and all looks sound and in good condition.
The only thing mentioned to us was ventilation up there, but the roofer said it was a doddle of a job and just means changing a few tiles for ones that let air though

So we're going ahead and are happy.

Yaaaay!!

Well done