Building regs certificates

SR1

I bought a house two years ago which has a small single storey extension built around 1999/2000. The issue of building regs was never raised when we bought it and we have no paper work for it. I have been told that any work over 12 years old is exempt anyway , what can I do? I am selling up and my buyers solicitor is asking about it

Hoploz

You can get an indemnity insurance to cover lack of building regs certificate.

It is totally pointless, but some lenders insist upon it.

Or your seller may want you to go through the process of regularisation, ie building inspector comes and checks whether it conforms, but this could be difficult as they might have to check depth of foundations and check correct lintels are used over doors and windows. Messy.

Fingers crossed they will accept an indemnity and rely on their own survey to decide whether it's structurally sound.

G_M

Tell them it is outside the 12 year period for Building Regs enforcement and that therefore there is no risk.

If the buyer wants to purchase indemnity insurance, they can.

It's time buyers and sellers started contesting this ever-increasing reliance on pointless indemnity insurance. I suspect that for every 100 policies sold by the insurance companies, they pay out on claims exactly: 0.

lincroft1710

G_M wrote: »

I suspect that for every 100 policies sold by the insurance companies, they pay out on claims exactly: 0.

Agreed........

Surrey_EA

Agreed with G_M, after that period of time I'd tell the buyer they are more than welcome to take out a policy, but you're not paying. If the extension was done 18 months ago it would be a little different.

SR1

Thanks I just queried it again with my solicitor and she insists it's 20 years the exemption period

Surrey_EA

SR1 wrote: »

Thanks I just queried it again with my solicitor and she insists it's 20 years the exemption period

I'm pretty sure she's wrong. My understanding is that enforcement action can only be taken within 2 years of the completion of the work.

"First, if a person carrying out building work contravenes the Building Regulations, the local authority may prosecute them in the Magistrates' Court where an unlimited fine may be imposed (sections 35 and 35A of the Building Act 1984). Prosecution is possible up to two years after the completion of the offending work."

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/responsibilities/buildingregulations/failure

However, if the work carried out presents a health & safety risk then the two year time limit does not apply.

Some further reading:

http://www.emwllp.com/whats-the-matter/real-estate/what-we-say/articles/a-brief-guide-to-enforcement-under-the-building-regulations-2010/

Freecall

I think that there are several different things being confused here.

Firstly, qualifying ‘building work’ (I place in quote marks because it is defined but I won’t go into it here) must be notified to the Local Authority either directly or by an Independent Approved Inspector. Not doing so is an offence and would be dealt with by way of summary proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court. Prosecution must be commenced within 6 months of the date when the discovery of the offending work was made provided that that prosecution is also commenced within 2 years of the completion of the offending works.

For what is being discussed here and I imagine all such discussions on these boards this will be irrelevant. It is unusual for Local Authorities to bring actions of this type in the courts an virtually unheard of in domestic situations. If you are simply the buyer of a hose you will not have committed an offence anyway.

The problems a buyer will have fall into two categories :

1) Does the work comply with the appropriate regulations?
2) Has the work been approved by the relevant body (LA or Independent)?

Work may be fully compliant but has not been approved. If that is the case then there is a ‘regularisation’ procedure which the Local Authority will use to grant approval retrospectively. (straightforward but can be messy on site if they want work exposed)

On the other hand, the work may not comply at all. In this case the Local Authority can insist that it is brought up to standard or removed. If it can be corrected then all is well apart from the cost of doing so. If not and removal is the only option then so be it.

Should the local Authority become aware of unauthorised work then legally it has an unlimited time frame in which to bring an action to force compliance. In practice however, if it is simple a BC issue and no other problems exist then they do not usually start action after a period of 12 years has elapsed.

There is another problem related to the 12 year issue and that is not that the generally don’t bring actions but the generally won’t regularise building work older than this.

This is because it becomes increasingly complex to do so. The way the Building Act is written means that the LA has to compare the regulations at the time the work was undertaken with what was done. This is very time consuming and so the ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ approach is normally taken.

However it can be a problem when 13 years later a solicitor pops up and asks a vendor for a certificate. Nothing wrong with asking, it is after all a legitimate request but getting one can be virtually impossible. I guess that is where the insurance companies come in although as G_M says, I doubt that they ever pay out.

G_M

Helpful Freecall. Thanks.

Building Act 1984

S35 and prosecution via Magistrates court - 2 years, but I thought

(4)A notice under subsection (1) or (2) above (called a “section 36 notice”) shall not be given after the expiration of 12 months from the date of the completion of the work in question.