Professional consultants certificate

davidmcn

teneighty wrote: »

it seems their request may be reasonable. I think davidmcn has under played how much work needs to be done for a conversion to comply with building regs, it is almost like a new build.

The OP suggested that the "conversion" wasn't much more than a change of use - if there were more significant alterations then they may have a point, but obviously you don't need anybody to "supervise" the fact that a room is now being used for domestic purposes rather than as an office, say.

Thrugelmir

davidmcn wrote: »

The OP suggested that the "conversion" wasn't much more than a change of use - if there were more significant alterations then they may have a point, but obviously you don't need anybody to "supervise" the fact that a room is now being used for domestic purposes rather than as an office, say.

What's obviously at issue is the potential quality of the workmanship. I recall making an offer on a 1890's house that had undergone complete renovation. Looked stunning to the eye. Owner produced pages of photos showing the work undertaken. Due to the age had a full structural survey done. The report came back with pages and pages of "faults". Plus a down valuation of £45k. Due to the amount of work that was required to rectify this particular builders poor workmanship.

Canary_Yellow

teneighty - I'd obviously already read the CML guidance. You're leaping ahead. Who is to say that what has happened to my house is a "conversion" for the purposes of the CML guidance?


It's a change of use, yes, but why is that necessarily also a "conversion" for CML purposes? That's the missing link.




Thrugelmir - I see your point, but the warranty and PCC would only be in relation to structural matters, if nothing has structurally changed, then any shoddy workmanship by the builders would be irrelevant. Anyone can have work done to their house and a builder do a bad job, but that doesn't mean that a lender will require a structural warranty.




Out of curiosity, what would be required in respect of a house that had an extension built? Would that require a PCC?

Thrugelmir

Canary_Yellow wrote: »

Anyone can have work done to their house and a builder do a bad job, but that doesn't mean that a lender will require a structural warranty.

The developer is the one wanting to ensure that they sell the property at a price within the bounds of the p/ex deal as a whole. Like yourselves a potential purchaser will take whatever steps they feel necessary to satisfy themselves as to the condition of the property. To save money people spend less than they would having a second hand car checked over. Bizarre when you consider the sums of money involved. Ultimately it's the homeowner that loses out not the lender. If a property is subsequently found to be of diminished value.

Canary_Yellow

I understand that, but it doesn't really help me answer the question of whether a PCC would actually be required by a lender when someone comes to try and borrow against the property.


We have a mortgage afterall, and I'm pretty sure we don't have a PCC....

teneighty

Canary_Yellow wrote: »

teneighty - I'd obviously already read the CML guidance. You're leaping ahead. Who is to say that what has happened to my house is a "conversion" for the purposes of the CML guidance?

I don't know what the CML definition is but it has been converted from a commercial building to a residential building so sounds like a conversion to me. Under Building Regulations it will have to comply with all the current standards for parts B, C, E, F, H, J, L and P and possibly more depending on the scope of work.

Like I said I haven't come across this before so interested to hear what the outcome is. There must be lots of these types of conversions/change of use that do not have PCC's so I suspect there is a way around it. Possibly you could make the argument that is was originally residential so it is a "reinstatement" of the original use rather than a "conversion".

davidmcn

"Conversion" in CML terms is creating a dwelling by e.g. subdividing a larger building into flats - in which case you'd normally expect a 10 year NHBC (or equivalent) warranty from the builder, and failing that (because it's a one-off project or a smaller builder) you get a certificate from the architect or equivalent consultant.

Merely changing the use of a building is not "conversion", and wouldn't make any sense if you look at the styles of PCC which refer to a building contract.

You wouldn't expect this sort of thing for a normal extension to a house, knocking rooms together etc, fitting or relocating a kitchen/bathroom, so it doesn't sound like it makes sense here.

teneighty

davidmcn wrote: »

"Conversion" in CML terms is creating a dwelling by e.g. subdividing a larger building into flats - in which case you'd normally expect a 10 year NHBC (or equivalent) warranty from the builder, and failing that (because it's a one-off project or a smaller builder) you get a certificate from the architect or equivalent consultant.

Merely changing the use of a building is not "conversion", and wouldn't make any sense if you look at the styles of PCC which refer to a building contract.

You wouldn't expect this sort of thing for a normal extension to a house, knocking rooms together etc, fitting or relocating a kitchen/bathroom, so it doesn't sound like it makes sense here.

That was the point I was trying to make, converting or changing a commercial building into a residential building is just as onerous as sub-dividing a building into flats, all the same building regulations apply (although with some differences obviously).

It is not just a matter of sticking in a kitchen and bathroom.

I don't follow the extension logic. If you build an extension you do not have to upgrade all the fire resistance, sound insulation, thermal insulation etc. etc. to the main house.

davidmcn

teneighty wrote: »

That was the point I was trying to make, converting or changing a commercial building into a residential building is just as onerous as sub-dividing a building into flats, all the same building regulations apply (although with some differences obviously).

It is not just a matter of sticking in a kitchen and bathroom.

But this wasn't a "commercial building", it's a terraced house, which at some point has been used for commercial purposes and is now back to residential use. I've seen similar where the most significant works were rejigging the kitchen and bathrooms, no more than you might have had where the house had continually been in residential use.