Master Bedroom in loft has no building regulations

NewLibra

I agree but we are paying for a 5 bedroom house......

alchemist.1

Pull out of the buying the property if you don't want to take the risk.

economic

I think if you can prove it was converted 6 (I think) years ago or more then council cant do anything. research a bit into it.

if true then no risk. also you can use this to try negotiate the price down (even though you know there's no risk).

Doozergirl

Does anyone want to quote me the law that says what you can and can't market a house as?

The majority of houses in this country don't even have building regs for the house being built. It doesn't mean it can't be marketed as a house.

Many kitchen extensions etc don't have certificates but people take indemnities and still buy. It doesn't make the extension 'not an extension'

Suddenly, when it's a bedroom, people start banding around the idea that it isn't what it is and that the house isn't worth what it is, despite the room probably being 20 or more years old.

The key is whether it is safe. That is what qualifies it as a safe and marketable room. The presence of building regulations sign off is not a pre-requisite for deciding whether something physically exists.

NewLibra

You're right, BR does not decide if something physically exists but it does determine whether you are allowed to call it a bedroom and whether work done since the original build is safe, and what (partially) decides a house value is number of bedrooms.

penguingirl

I would want to know that it was safe. There are some truly terrifying loft conversions out there where the roof is not adequately supported. Tbh I don't think I would ever buy a house with a un-signed off loft conversion because of this.

Doozergirl

NewLibra wrote: »

You're right, BR does not decide if something physically exists but it does determine whether you are allowed to call it a bedroom and whether work done since the original build is safe, and what (partially) decides a house value is number of bedrooms.

But BR doesn't really determine whether one is allowed to call it a bedroom. And while it may confirm it is safe, a lack of sign off doesn't mean it is unsafe.

I'm asking for the law/legislation/guidelines that confirm otherwise.

If a house has no building regs sign off when built then according to your logic, it can't be sold at all. Or if it doesn't, where is the line?

Why is a 100 or even a 50 year old house without regs a saleable house? Why is a 10 year old kitchen extension still a kitchen with an indemnity policy? Why isn't a 20 year old bedroom a bedroom?

Building control don't regulate what rooms are allowed to be called on an estate agent's brochure or house values.

NewLibra

According to trading standards

"Extensions, loft conversions and outhouses have created problems where an estate agent has described a room as a bedroom, but it has not been subject to planning or building regulation approval and, thus, is not suitable to be used as such. If a vendor is unable to supply details, then the planning office should be approached for confirmation. If you are unable to establish that the room was correctly approved, then great care needs to be exercised - either describing the room as a boarded loft area (or other appropriate description), or stating clearly that planning permission for the room has not been obtained."

However that is all purchase price related (and with the prices where I am it's quite a lot of money between 4 & 5 bedroom valuations)

I still haven't been able to resolve how it impacts building insurance.

Doozergirl

That's guidance from trading standards to estate agents on how to describe things that aren't clear. It talks anecdotally of instances where such has happened, and I wouldn't deny that some utterly shoddy things are built and fobbed off as rooms. It does not state that *any* room that hasn't been subject to both is not suitable. We know that isn't the case as thousands upon thousands of indemnity policies are purchased every year to protect mortgage lenders against the tiniest chance of enforcement action.

I love how trading standards don't even understand the difference between planning and building regulations. :banghead:

If that loft conversion is deemed safe by a surveyor, has effective regularisation via the fact that a building control officer approved a dormer window in an existing loft conversion 14 years ago, it has been standing for more than 15 years, distancing it from any chance of enforcement and a mortgage company will accept an indemnity policy, it's a room.

davidmcn

Doozergirl wrote: »

If that loft conversion is deemed safe by a surveyor, has effective regularisation via the fact that a building control officer approved a dormer window in an existing loft conversion 14 years ago, it has been standing for more than 15 years, distancing it from any chance of enforcement and a mortgage company will accept an indemnity policy, it's a room.

I would agree with this. People tend to get overexcited about loft conversions (partly I think because of practical issues about structural integrity and fire safety) but if it's historic then they ought to be treated in the same way as any other historic alteration.

And I don't know why people think that buildings insurers need everything to be squeaky-clean from a building regs point of view.