Meeting building regs

halesowenmum

Hiya

I'm posting about an end terraced house which I'm in the process of buying and needing to query the remedial works requested by the lender's suveyor. I want to understand exactly what they mean and why they are requesting what I feel are possibly onerous levels of remedial work. I'm not posting in the mortgages etc forum as I want more to understand building regs that kind of thing, rather than lenders policies/or the relative positive or minuses of surveyors :eek::T.

The communal internal wall between this property and the next door neighbour has been judged to be single leaf (I am not sure I agree with that having a previous survey to go on where that's not even mentioned but let's put that aside and let's assume they're right and it is single leaf). The lender's surveyor wants me to essentially rebuild across both storeys and including the roof apex 'to cavity construction in line with building regulations'.

So firstly, my understanding of the purpose of cavity walls is that they are intended to prevent the transfer of damp from the outside of a wall, to the internal walls of the property - right? So I'm a bit puzzled as to why it's needed in a wall that sits between two terraced houses and where 95% of the remedial work involved to achieve that would be to walls which are not exposed to the elements, ever. Can anyone enlighten me further about this and why they would have requested that to be done??

Secondly, if we take the second part of their requirement that it needs to meet Building Regulations - what exactly do they mean, which bit or bits of the building regulations? I spoke to a builder and of course building a cavity wall across two storeys would cost huge amounts of money and is entirely unaffordable, but if in fact what they want is for there to be protection against noise, heat loss or damp then this could equally well be covered off by using batons and the appropriate board - couldn't it? Would that still meet building regs? Why do they want a cavity wall building - I just don't understand.

Unfortunately despite asking repeatedly to enter into a dialogue with the lender/the lender's surveyor to try and unpick what it is they want, why they've reached the conclusions they've reached, which bits of Building Regs they actually want to see addressed in any work done, they absolutely will not respond to me other than to keep saying "its single leaf and an automatic decline", "its single leaf and an automatic decline", "its single leaf and an automatic decline" - yes, but if you want the person to render the property not declinable, at least give 'em a clue as to the what's and why's so they can do work that's appropriate and so that it will meet the regulations.

Someone mentioned something about rectifying defects but this is a 1900s house built to the standards of the time and the building isn't showing anything of concern relating to this wall (eg structural indicators or significant damp) so I'm not sure how building regs apply when there isn't specifically a defect and it's not a more recently built garage or extension or something, that wasn't built to the appropriate regs.

Just generally confused and seeking help from folk who know more about this than me!!

Thank you.

MisterBaxter

If you were to rebuild the party wall then any building you do would obviously have to comply with the current building Regs, however as you have guessed there is no legal reason for you to rebuild the wall so it looks like it is just a condition being imposed by the lender. The previous owner most likely had a mortgage and I suspect that there will be others in the street/area who have a mortgage with the construction as it is.

I'm not sure that there is much you can do if the lender is imposing this condition as they don't have to lend to you. It sounds like the lender has very firm ideas about what they want which is the party wall being rebuilt but I can't see why and they don't seem to want to give a reason other than it being their policy.

teneighty

The only time I have seen the surveyor/valuer ask for the separating/party wall to be rebuilt is in the loft space as it is a fire risk.

To rebuild the entire party wall would be complete madness.

The logic of rebuilding it as a cavity wall is it provides better sound insulation (Building Regs Part E) but it is still a crazy idea to rebuild the wall unless it is structurally unstable.

When they say single leaf I assume they mean 4 inch/100mm half brick thick wall, a very poor choice of terminology. For an internal separating wall that is structurally adequate but you will probably be able to hear the neighbours breathing.

chappers

halesowenmum wrote: »

Hiya

I'm posting about an end terraced house which I'm in the process of buying and needing to query the remedial works requested by the lender's suveyor. I want to understand exactly what they mean and why they are requesting what I feel are possibly onerous levels of remedial work. I'm not posting in the mortgages etc forum as I want more to understand building regs that kind of thing, rather than lenders policies/or the relative positive or minuses of surveyors :eek::T.

The communal internal wall between this property and the next door neighbour has been judged to be single leaf (I am not sure I agree with that having a previous survey to go on where that's not even mentioned but let's put that aside and let's assume they're right and it is single leaf). The lender's surveyor wants me to essentially rebuild across both storeys and including the roof apex 'to cavity construction in line with building regulations'. What the hell for, many houses have single leaf walls between the neighbours

So firstly, my understanding of the purpose of cavity walls is that they are intended to prevent the transfer of damp from the outside of a wall, to the internal walls of the property - right? So I'm a bit puzzled as to why it's needed in a wall that sits between two terraced houses and where 95% of the remedial work involved to achieve that would be to walls which are not exposed to the elements, ever. Can anyone enlighten me further about this and why they would have requested that to be done?? Because they sound like trouble making idiots

Secondly, if we take the second part of their requirement that it needs to meet Building Regulations - what exactly do they mean, which bit or bits of the building regulations? I spoke to a builder and of course building a cavity wall across two storeys would cost huge amounts of money and is entirely unaffordable, but if in fact what they want is for there to be protection against noise, heat loss or damp then this could equally well be covered off by using batons and the appropriate board - couldn't it? Would that still meet building regs? Why do they want a cavity wall building - I just don't understand. Correct there is no need to build a cavity wall to meet any of the requirements you mention

Unfortunately despite asking repeatedly to enter into a dialogue with the lender/the lender's surveyor to try and unpick what it is they want, why they've reached the conclusions they've reached, which bits of Building Regs they actually want to see addressed in any work done, they absolutely will not respond to me other than to keep saying "its single leaf and an automatic decline", "its single leaf and an automatic decline", "its single leaf and an automatic decline" - yes, but if you want the person to render the property not declinable, at least give 'em a clue as to the what's and why's so they can do work that's appropriate and so that it will meet the regulations. It sounds like the surveyor/lender doesn't know what he's on about nor really the reasons why the lender won't lend on single leaf walls and so can't give you a reason.

Someone mentioned something about rectifying defects but this is a 1900s house built to the standards of the time and the building isn't showing anything of concern relating to this wall (eg structural indicators or significant damp) so I'm not sure how building regs apply when there isn't specifically a defect and it's not a more recently built garage or extension or something, that wasn't built to the appropriate regs.
That is correct they wouldn't be classed as defects if they were built correct at the time of construction and there is no provision in the building regs to upgrade if works are carried out to the property

Just generally confused and seeking help from folk who know more about this than me!!

Thank you.

Hi there I'm sorry to see that you still haven't resolved this problem, can you say who the lender is here, as it might be worth looking in the CML handbook and seeing if there is anything mentioned in there.
What they are asking you seems absolutely ridiculous. Most of the houses in my area would fail their criteria and I'm seeing them still selling without any building works going on.
Are you dealing with a broker on this, to be honest I know this may have already caused you some money to get to this stage, but I would seriously consider giving them the elbow and either finding another lender or another property.

Furts

There is no point in me commenting on the need for a cavity wall. The lender has stipulated this as a condition of lending.

If the party wall is only 4 inches wide then is worrying. But the wall is still standing, so the test of time is valid provided nothing is done to alter this - like chasing out for new wiring and sockets.

I suspect the single skin wall is a 9 inches thick wall. This would be more acceptable and less worrying.

With both wall scenarios an issue is are the floor joists acting too stiffen the structure or are they weakening it? Hence there is a cause for concern.

The practicalities of building a cavity wall are considerable. For a start a foundation will be required. Then ties are required. Plus what happens to the electrics and radiators which may be on this wall? It may be this new wall is intended to be load bearing and receive your floor joists...time to move on!

Ectophile

As previously mentioned, building regs are not retrospective. If they were, most houses in the UK would fail to comply.

Can you just find another lender?

halesowenmum

chappers wrote: »

Hi there I'm sorry to see that you still haven't resolved this problem, can you say who the lender is here, as it might be worth looking in the CML handbook and seeing if there is anything mentioned in there.
What they are asking you seems absolutely ridiculous. Most of the houses in my area would fail their criteria and I'm seeing them still selling without any building works going on.
Are you dealing with a broker on this, to be honest I know this may have already caused you some money to get to this stage, but I would seriously consider giving them the elbow and either finding another lender or another property.

That's what I'm doing - trying to go elsewhere but the issue is I only went Ltd Co in May and don't have 2 yrs accounts so I'm getting previous income evidence together to see if I can build a case of being able to afford (I am able) and see if I can get a more reasonable lender.

When I highlighted that the first survey mentioned nothing of this issue and it was one of their own surveyors, they refuse to discuss it but mentioned 'it could be that in the intervening 2 yrs the lending criteria have changed'. So I said ok, show me the evidence of that. Their response?: 'It is an internal document and we can't show it to you'.

This is Virgin Money we're talking about. Be great if you can find something as I can't. I deeply resent is two things. Firstly being treated like a mushroom with blanket refusal from them to be open and transparent and discuss/explain any points in any detail at all with me, their customer, and then to be required to do a load of work for which I can't see any genuine reason.

halesowenmum

Ectophile wrote: »

As previously mentioned, building regs are not retrospective. If they were, most houses in the UK would fail to comply.

Can you just find another lender?

See that's what I thought. No structural issues have been identified so to me it's a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. I'm trying to do this if I can but it's going to be difficult to get that one to fly. Haven't given up though - not quite yet!

halesowenmum

Furts wrote: »

There is no point in me commenting on the need for a cavity wall. The lender has stipulated this as a condition of lending.

If the party wall is only 4 inches wide then is worrying. But the wall is still standing, so the test of time is valid provided nothing is done to alter this - like chasing out for new wiring and sockets.

I suspect the single skin wall is a 9 inches thick wall. This would be more acceptable and less worrying.

With both wall scenarios an issue is are the floor joists acting too stiffen the structure or are they weakening it? Hence there is a cause for concern.

The practicalities of building a cavity wall are considerable. For a start a foundation will be required. Then ties are required. Plus what happens to the electrics and radiators which may be on this wall? It may be this new wall is intended to be load bearing and receive your floor joists...time to move on!

There's absolutely no way I'm spending £3k on solicitors to get party wall agreements put in place than at least another £5k to £8k to dig foundations and build two or more storeys of cavity wall construction - it's totally unaffordable so I cannot proceed with this lender (well, unless my complaint to the FOS comes back trumps which I only did for an exercise as I don't believe it will change anything anyway).

Move on you say. I tell you what, if there were three houses the exact same as this one in the same street all for sale, I'd happily switch. But there aren't. My suitable area is incredibly small as its based around children walking to school so makes it limited, plus 90% of the houses around are 2 beds not 3, and the remaining 10% that are 3 beds aren't for sale and plus every single one of them will have the same construction between them so it wouldn't make a busting lot of difference even if one was available (which it isn't). So it's this house or I have to pull out of selling mine, there's literally going to be no other choice unless I can get a mortgage with an alternate lender. Bummer.

Furts

halesowenmum wrote: »

There's absolutely no way I'm spending £3k on solicitors to get party wall agreements put in place than at least another £5k to £8k to dig foundations and build two or more storeys of cavity wall construction - it's totally unaffordable so I cannot proceed with this lender (well, unless my complaint to the FOS comes back trumps which I only did for an exercise as I don't believe it will change anything anyway).

Move on you say. I tell you what, if there were three houses the exact same as this one in the same street all for sale, I'd happily switch. But there aren't. My suitable area is incredibly small as its based around children walking to school so makes it limited, plus 90% of the houses around are 2 beds not 3, and the remaining 10% that are 3 beds aren't for sale and plus every single one of them will have the same construction between them so it wouldn't make a busting lot of difference even if one was available (which it isn't). So it's this house or I have to pull out of selling mine, there's literally going to be no other choice unless I can get a mortgage with an alternate lender. Bummer.

But equally the surveyor may be correct and the walls may be unsuitable. You have not shown any evidence that the surveyor is wrong. As an example within ten miles of my home houses were built where there was scimping on brickwork. The standard four inch wide bricks were laid on their sides to give walls of three inch thickness. You may have this with your surveyed home.

Building Regulations cannot be retrospective because English Law does not accept the concept of retrospective. This is countered by good practice and recommendations, plus introducing new laws to overcome historic defects. Hence the surveyor could legitimately take this approach with your example.

MisterBaxter

Furts wrote: »

But equally the surveyor may be correct and the walls may be unsuitable. You have not shown any evidence that the surveyor is wrong. As an example within ten miles of my home houses were built where there was scimping on brickwork. The standard four inch wide bricks were laid on their sides to give walls of three inch thickness. You may have this with your surveyed home.

Building Regulations cannot be retrospective because English Law does not accept the concept of retrospective. This is countered by good practice and recommendations, plus introducing new laws to overcome historic defects. Hence the surveyor could legitimately take this approach with your example.

We only have what the OP has said to go on but based on the communications they say they have had with the lender/surveyor it does appear to be some sort of internal policy that they decline to lend on a 'single leaf wall'. If the surveyor had found some sort of actual, definitive defect it would be normal for them to state it, they would have no reason to withhold such information. Nothing the OP has said indicates that they have been informed of an actual defect. A single skin wall is not in and of itself a defect. I'm sure the surveyor is perfectly correct in his/her assessment of the construction but it is more of a comment on what's there than what condition it's in; factually correct but hardly useful.

It feels like the lender is using a reason to decline the loan that the OP simply can't argue with and that they know is almost certainly too impractical to warrant addressing.

Does the lender have some sort of appeals process that would either rethink the decision, allow a sensible decision based practical solution or at least properly explain what it wrong with the property rather than just a carte-blanche, it single skin so no loan. I take it they have this 'rule' written down somewhere and have been able to show you that it is a standing policy.