Bank won't lend money.

Doozergirl

It will have something to do with their lending policy on timber frame. Some lenders don't like it at all.

There's not a lot you can do given that it's your buyer's problem but they should go to their broker for a chat. Might be best to find a different lender.

Perhaps you cn work out of you have the 'wrong' kind of timber frame. Many self builds now are timber framed as technology now makes it a much warmer, airtight way of building than cavity construction. It's the future.

Pippa65

It just seems so unfair that you do everything you're supposed to and still get penalised. It makes a mockery of planning and building regulations as well. Makes you wonder why we even bothered paying out for it to be done right in the first place. Regs change all the time so pretty much anything built longer than a couple of months ago will never confirm to 'current' regs.

takman

Pippa65 wrote: »

It just seems so unfair that you do everything you're supposed to and still get penalised. It makes a mockery of planning and building regulations as well. Makes you wonder why we even bothered paying out for it to be done right in the first place. Regs change all the time so pretty much anything built longer than a couple of months ago will never confirm to 'current' regs.

It's nothing to do with not conforming to current building regulations. It's just that particular lender has a policy that they will not lend to properties with a particular construction type, so they need to go to another lender.
I don't see how it makes a mockery of planning and building regulations. Construction methods and technology evolves over time so the best way to build a house is always going to change. Complying at the time doesn't mean it will always be accepted as a reliable way to construct a house by everyone.

societys_child

The lenders money, the lenders rules. Your buyers should try a different lender.

ReadingTim

You're not being penalised at all - if anyone is, your potential buyer might be; but then again it's the bank's money, so it's their choice what sort of properties they will and won't lend against.

Alternatively, it's a negotiating tactic and they're trying to justify a lower offer than the one you previously agreed on.

Your response should therefore be something along the lines of:

"the extension complied with all relevant regulations at the time of its construction, but, as with the rest of the property, is now "sold as seen". If, as a result of your survey and other enquiries, you are unwilling or unable to proceed with the purchase at the agreed price, I will find another buyer who will."

PersianCatLady

Pippa65 wrote: »

Selling our 1930's house. It has first floor extension built in 1996 with planning permission, building regulations and completion certificate. The people buying our property have Cash and mortgage but the bank they are borrowing the mortgage with won't lend them the money as they are questioning the construction of said extention. How can they do this when everything was done legally and correctly in line with the regulations in 1996. I agree that regulations have changed but it feels like we're being penalised for something that was done right at the time. Has this happened to anyone else? Any advice gratefully accepted. Thank you.

How do you know this is the case?

It sounds really like a way to ask for a price reduction.

Doozergirl

Pippa65 wrote: »

It just seems so unfair that you do everything you're supposed to and still get penalised. It makes a mockery of planning and building regulations as well. Makes you wonder why we even bothered paying out for it to be done right in the first place. Regs change all the time so pretty much anything built longer than a couple of months ago will never confirm to 'current' regs.

You're confused. It's not a building control or a planning issue. It has nothing to do with regs back then or regs now and it does not make a mockery of the system. You have the certificate that's fine, but your lender does not like that construction. Some lenders don't lend on flats above food shops, some don't lend on flats above any shops, some lend on flats above shops if over a % of a building is residential, some don't care and will lend. That has nothing to do with Building Control or Planning. It is the lender's policy. Quite simply, some lenders are more risk averse than others. Your extension presents a perceived increased fire risk to some lenders.

Did you have the extension built? Certain types of timber frame are percecied to be better than others. It might fit the criteria if it's built a certain way but ultimately it is down to your buyers to see if they can persuade the lender because it's only a percentage of the build or it's an acceptable method.

kingstreet

Nationwide Building Society says this in its criteria;-

Traditional Construction

The following are regarded as traditional construction and normal lending terms apply:

Walls

Cavity outer walls of brick/reconstituted stone/block (including rendered walls) with inner walls of brick or block.
Timber framed property with outer walls of brick/reconstituted stone/block (including rendered walls), built 1970 or after.
Solid stone (eg limestone, granite).
Cob - or any regional variant (for example cobb, clom and Wychert).

The inevitable question here is did your purchaser know about this in advance and did they have the opportunity to select lenders accordingly or have they blundered into "the best deal" without knowing some of the property may be problematic to some lenders?