3 bed or 4 bed? Land registry? Building regs?

rosered22

About to put an offer in on a house advertised as a 4 bed but it has transpired that the 4th bedroom loft conversion (not sure how old but definitely pre 2009) has no building reg certificate.


The current owner bought in 2009 and was given an indemnity policy.


I've done a lot of searching on this forum and raised some points with the estate agent saying that the house should only have been advertised as a 3 bed and the price should be lowered, but she countered me saying the house was previously sold as a 4 bed in 2009 and is now on the Land Registry as a 4 bed (Zoopla and Rightmove list as 4 bed and I presume that's where they get their info?) so they are entitled to class it as a habitable room...is this advice correct?


Is it now classed as an official room because it's listed on land registry as such or should it still be knocked down in price because it has no Building Regs? Can it be classed as a room? I don't want to run into the same problem when we re-sell.


Thanks in advance!

davidmcn

You'll find plenty of previous discussions here about loft conversions - I would probably start with trying to figure out how historic it is (and even whether it really is a conversion) - does pre-2009 mean 2008, 1978, 1908...? And what sort of quality the conversion is - does it seem far removed from current building standards? Is it a room you'd actually want to use as a bedroom?

rosered22

Thanks david, sorry I'm aware of lots of other posts and have had a good read but none of them seem to cover the aspect that it's on the land registry as a 4 bed so must have been deemed as one in the past. Otherwise I'd have no problem sticking to my guns and insisting they drop the price and sell it as a 3 bed plus bonus room.


I'm viewing the property again this eve so I'll try to get out of them exactly when it was done, if the vendor/agent have this information.


It's definitely habitable, and we'd be happy to use as an occasional guest bedroom but just don't want to be paying for it if we can't sell it on at the same price.

rosered22

To answer about current standards...it has reasonable stairs and a door at the bottom of them. One velux window backing onto the garden. Not sure how easy it would be to climb out in a fire though....so it looks to a good standard but quite old. I'd say maybe 20 years? But I'll try to find out later!

Doozergirl

The people who say it can only be marketed as X are wrong. It seems to be a particular feature of the MSE forums that a loft conversion is somehow different to any other form of extension. Ask the same question about a 'normal' extension containing bedrooms and no one on will tell you that the bedrooms are not bedrooms.

Each house has to be taken on its own merits, for many different reasons, but the key is structural stability and safety.

If someone has thrown some plasterboard on the rafters, cut through purlins and bunged an incredibly steep staircase up there without thought it is not a loft conversion.

If there is proper effort gone in, if the structure is sound, then it can. And the older the conversion, the more acceptable it becomes and the lower the standard can be.

What people fail to recognise is that national building regulations in their current form didn't exist until 1986. Most of our housing stock was built before this so had no recognisable sign-off. And a house built now will far exceed the standards of one from even 1996. The lack of regs for the houses these extensions are on isn't an issue! Many Georgian houses shouldn't even be standing if a structural engineer ran the structure through their software - yet we pay more for period houses...

It isn't a simple answer. The answer should depend on a structural survey and a liberal does of common sense on the part of the surveyor or engineer.

But categorically - the lack of formal building regulations sign off does not automatically mean that something doesn't exist or is structurally unsound. It is all about due diligence and investigation. The certificate just makes it easy and quick to know that something is sound.

There have been cases of houses with 'loft conversions' built as original in the Victorian period being questioned on this board.

Cakeguts

My argument about loft conversions is that a house with a loft conversion should cost less than a purpose built house of the same number of bedrooms in the same area allowing for adjustments on size. For example a 1930s 3 bed semi with a loft conversion will cost less to buy than a purpose built 1930s 4 bed semi in the same area. This is because the floor plans will be bigger in the 4 bed.

So I think that it is a good idea to compare the price of a house advertised as a 4 bed where one of the beds is in the loft with a house with 4 beds and no loft conversion.

A house where there is doubt about the quality/safety of the loft conversion should be much cheaper than a purpose built 4 bed because with the purpose built 4 bedrooms you know you have 4 bedrooms that can be used as bedrooms straight away. However you won't know that the loft room in this case is unsound or not good quality unless you have a structural engineer survey it. When you know the answer to this you can decide how to proceed.

G_M

The property is worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

If there are 3 bedrooms on (say) the 1st floor, and 1 in the attic, then clearly it is a 4 bedroom property.

The only issues are

1) is the attic bedroom safe? Have a survey done, and investigate the age of the conversion.

2) might the local authority enforce Building Regulations? After 4 years they cannot.

Doozergirl

Cakeguts, houses are generally valued using a price per square foot for the area and whether the proeprty is detached or not. It is really very usual for the price to reflect the square footage, so a house with proportionately less ground floor space is automatically valued at less anyway.

A house that is extended downstairs as well as up into a loft may well be the same price as a purpose built 4 bed.

rosered22

Thanks for all your input! Just trying to ascertain whether the fact that the land registry list it as a 4 bed must mean that something was officially registered with them in the past? Or does it just mean that a solicitor somewhere along has failed to spot the lack of building regs?

Hoploz

To answer your question - no, having it listed on Land Registry or property portals with any particular description means absolutely nothing. It's a red herring - whoever stated that is talking from their rear end.

rosered22

Hoploz wrote: »

To answer your question - no, having it listed on Land Registry or property portals with any particular description means absolutely nothing. It's a red herring - whoever stated that is talking from their rear end.

Thanks hoploz, so what would have got it on land registry as a 4 bed? Just the previous vendors say so?