Building regs cert for 1920s house with recovered roof

Mistermeaner

Hi, in process of buying a 1920 detached house, not exchanged yet but pretty close

Had a home buyer survey done which mentioned the roof had been recoverdd , did not say when just that it had. Amatuer me could also tell as it newish looking cement tiles that would not have been on originally and also had felting undernesth , roof in good shape so all good we thought

Our solicitor pops up on Fri to tell us the current owners can't produce a building regs cert for the recovering as they didn't do the work, they bought in 2013 and it was already done at that time . they have no idea when work was done

Solicitor then showed us the bank survey form which mentions the property has been re-roofed, not just recovered (academic I guess with regs now but annoying lack of detail) no mention of date

Sol has told us she has to flag this to our mortgage company and we now await their response

Seems daft as work could have been done 20years ago (pre 2010 regs)

I know building regs approval is required foir a recover too but seems daft to be flagging this

Anyone with experience of similar can advise of possible mortgage company response?

Rambosmum

same has come up with our sale, except we did the reroof and didn't get regs (niaive us had no idea you needed them). Buyers mortgage company seem satisfied with an indemnity policy (paid for by us).

G_M

Does it require BRs if the new roof is like-for-like (ie slate for slate, tile for tile)?

Pitch Roof

If the existing roof covering is to be replaced with a different material to its original for example, slate to tiles, then approval under the Building Regulations is likely to be needed to ensure the roof will be adequate in terms of structural stability (applicable where the replacement tile will be significantly heavier or lighter than the existing), and also meets requirements in respect of fire safety and energy efficiency (see above).

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/47/roof/4

Additionally,

A section 36 enforcement notice cannot be served on you after the expiration of 12 months from the date of completion of the building work.

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200128/building_control/38/building_regulations/3

Mistermeaner

Thanks both - this is kind of the point I don't get ; why flag it up?

Doozergirl

G_M wrote: »

Does it require BRs if the new roof is like-for-like (ie slate for slate, tile for tile)?
https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/47/roof/4

Additionally,
https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200128/building_control/38/building_regulations/3

1. Re-covering more than 25% of a roof does trigger the need to apply for Building Regulations Approval.
https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/47/roof/3

2. Section 36 is only one way of dealing with a building regulations breach. As unlikely as it is, an injuction can be obtained and there is no time limit on that. That is why indemnity policies exist and why mortgage companies are cautious about potential breaches.

Doozergirl

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Thanks both - this is kind of the point I don't get ; why flag it up?

Because it should have been signed off and the time limit isn't 12 months. It's highly unlikely that you'll end up in court for not having sufficient loft insulation and breathable membrane, but mortgage companies don't apply common sense.

These issues coming up in conveyancing do raise awareness and provide an additional reason for people to do things properly. If being warm and safe wasn't good enough reason. People will prioritise cost over many things.

martinsurrey

Doozergirl wrote: »

Because it should have been signed off and the time limit isn't 12 months. It's highly unlikely that you'll end up in court for not having sufficient loft insulation and breathable membrane, but mortgage companies don't apply common sense.

These issues coming up in conveyancing do raise awareness and provide an additional reason for people to do things properly. If being warm and safe wasn't good enough reason. People will prioritise cost over many things.

spot on

Section 36 part (6) of the Building Control Act 1984 reads

(6) This section does not affect the right of a local authority, the Attorney General or any other person to apply for an injunction for the removal or alteration of any work on the ground that it contravenes any regulation or any provision of this Act; but if—

(a)the work is one in respect of which plans were deposited,

(b)the plans were passed by the local authority, or notice of their rejection was not given within the relevant period from their deposit, and

(c)the work has been executed in accordance with the plans,

the court on granting an injunction has power to order the local authority to pay to the owner of the work such compensation as the court thinks just, but before making any such order the court shall in accordance with rules of court cause the local authority, if not a party to the proceedings, to be joined as a party to them.

so no time limit for an injunction, VERY unlikely unless the work is a danger to the owner or public, but still possible.

Mistermeaner

FYI in case anyone experiences similar we have been told today that the mortgage company is OK with no regs in place and is happy to proceed - no indemnity etc required

Mistermeaner

on the replies thanks all for input; appreciate need for building regs but the point with this one was that the roof had been recovered at SOME point; noone knows when but some time after 1920 - there will be millions of houses of similar age that have had all sorts of repair / replacement work done over the prior 90 years with no building regs sign off

martinsurrey

Mistermeaner wrote: »

on the replies thanks all for input; appreciate need for building regs but the point with this one was that the roof had been recovered at SOME point; noone knows when but some time after 1920 - there will be millions of houses of similar age that have had all sorts of repair / replacement work done over the prior 90 years with no building regs sign off

yup, which is why the indemnity insurance scam is doing so well...