Lack of Building regulations

CPF101

Hi,












I'm looking for some advice or if someone has had the same experience. In the process of purchasing a property (later stages). It now appears there are no building regulations for a internal wall removal and ground floor removal of the chimney. The Solicitors seems to be useless and just offers up the usual Indemnity insurance which strictly only insures against the council taking you to court, which they won't.


We would like a structural engineer to now inspect, however unlikely the vendor would accept. Of greater concern now after reading in the matters, it appears Insurance companies will not offer home insurance for homes with lack of building regulations. Also probably means many people in this country have invalid home insurance policies without knowing. Has anyone had any experience of this or able to offer any advice? thanks.

Surrey_EA

When was the work carried out?

There are two parts to this. Firstly, once four years has passed since the completion of the work the local authority cannot take any enforcement action for lack of building regs.

Secondly, has the work been carried out to an acceptable standard? Have you had a buildings survey carried out? If so what did your surveyor say? If the work was carried out twenty years ago any problems are likely to have made themselves obvious by now. If you have not had a survey then some form of inspection is obviously sensible.

As for building insurance, I have not read the small print of my policy, and do not know anyone who has! In my limited experience about a third of all properties sold are missing building regs for one thing or another.

davidmcn

CPF101 wrote: »

after reading in the matters, it appears Insurance companies will not offer home insurance for homes with lack of building regulations

Where did you read this? (it's nonsense, but it's come up before, so I'm just wondering what the source is)

CPF101

Yes had a full survey done, but they just looked at the area and advised to ask your solicitor for the Building regs. Which we now find out the vendor doesn't have. Going on we would probably have to get a structural surveyor for a more intrusive inspection, vendors are unlikely to accept. As for the date of removal, we have no idea and no proof can ever be known now, the current vendor has been in locations since 2002, we suspect the works were probably done when the extension was completed in the 1982 which has all the paperwork.
It's no doubt stood the test of time, but of great concern is the unwillingness of home insurers will not insure for no building regs.

Doozergirl

The majority of houses in this country were built without building regs, so it simply can't be true that entire houses aren't covered!

Think about it. Have your solicitors asked for building regs documents and planning permission for the original build. No? No.

Is it a problem? No.

CPF101

davidmcn wrote: »

Where did you read this? (it's nonsense, but it's come up before, so I'm just wondering what the source is)

I read this on various online sources, and I then asked the insurers who confirmed they will not insure with no building regs.

davidmcn

CPF101 wrote: »

I read this on various online sources, and I then asked the insurers who confirmed they will not insure with no building regs.

Reputable online sources, though? I can find you online sources claiming that Elvis is living on the moon...

I have never seen it mentioned in buildings policies or proposal forms. There may be confusion though because it won't be an insured risk (i.e. if the alteration is structurally defective the insurers aren't going to pay to fix it). But that's the same even if there had been consents.

CPF101

davidmcn wrote: »

Reputable online sources, though? I can find you online sources claiming that Elvis is living on the moon...

I have never seen it mentioned in buildings policies or proposal forms. There may be confusion though because it won't be an insured risk (i.e. if the alteration is structurally defective the insurers aren't going to pay to fix it). But that's the same even if there had been consents.

I completed some online quotes and based on my quotes called the insurers. Based on the information of no building regulations for internal wall and part chimney removal, the underwriters cannot insure, was their response.

Surrey_EA

CPF101 wrote: »

I read this on various online sources, and I then asked the insurers who confirmed they will not insure with no building regs.

If the work was carried out in the early 80's it is possible, depending on the precise local authority, that building regulation completions certificates were not issued.

There are so many houses throughout the country that lack build regs certs for various bits of work that I cannot believe they're all uninsured.

CPF101

Surrey_EA wrote: »

If the work was carried out in the early 80's it is possible, depending on the precise local authority, that building regulation completions certificates were not issued.

There are so many houses throughout the country that lack build regs certs for various bits of work that I cannot believe they're all uninsured.

Obviously it's pure guess work on the date, and no proof.
As with any insurance it's only viable on good faith if all facts are presented to the Insurer. Should the worst happen, we all know they will try their best to get out of paying.