Experience applying for Letter of Comfort?

dunroving

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The dormer extensions in my home wouldn't meet current building regulations and my vendor managed to get a letter of comfort. I don't think the council actually carry out an inspection, they just charge £300 for a letter.

This reflects some of the online information I have found, but several of the local authorities imply that work may be needed following the inspection.

Argyll and Bute: "Please note that the inspection may result in the need for remedial works to be undertaken prior to the !!!8216;letter of comfort!!!8217; being issued. "

West Lothian: "This letter is only issued after a desktop assessment or an inspection has been carried out and any remedial works that was required has been satisfactorily completed."

Perth and Kinross: "A Letter of Comfort, will confirm that the works undertaken comply with the relevant standards and/or no enforcement action will take place."

Glasgow: "Please note that the inspection may result in the need for remedial works to be undertaken prior to the !!!8220;letter of comfort!!!8221; being issued. Failure to do so may result in statutory action being taken by this Authority. "

As I said originally, I am finding the whole situation to be rather bizarre.

sheramber

Fireproofing may have been introduced after these sheds were passed.

We are in the Highland Council and they required the conversion to meet current regs.

davidmcn

Is the shed even worth £350?

In relation to standards, without them knowing when the works were done they can't be too specific about which version of building regulations applied. All that they're confirming is that they don't intend to take enforcement action.

dunroving

It's a big sturdy shed running the length of the house, with a deep concrete base, lighting, power and plumbing, and an overhang providing a sheltered entry down the side of the house. To remove and replace it with something meeting current regulations would cost a sight more than £350. I'm less concerned about the attic as the buyer intends to build a loft conversion so will amend the current roof ties to meet building regs anyway.

davidmcn

Any idea how old the shed is, other than pre-2005? If probably pre-1998 you can always try pointing them towards the standard missives clause, which says you don't need to produce anything for alterations more than 20 years old.

dunroving

davidmcn wrote: »

Any idea how old the shed is, other than pre-2005? If probably pre-1998 you can always try pointing them towards the standard missives clause, which says you don't need to produce anything for alterations more than 20 years old.

Thanks, I had not come across that. I don't think it is that old, but can look into it.

I'm hoping everything will become clearer when I receive the letter from Stirling Council. Regardless, will return and update when I know more.

dunroving

davidmcn wrote: »

Any idea how old the shed is, other than pre-2005? If probably pre-1998 you can always try pointing them towards the standard missives clause, which says you don't need to produce anything for alterations more than 20 years old.

Have now found a description of the standard missives clause, by way of a client guide from Mitchells Robertson. The 20-year rule is described more from the point of the seller providing certificates, etc., for work done within 20 years of ... etc., rather than the opposite (if > 20 years, nothing needs to be presented).

I think there may well be some negotiating on that clause in the near future. Will provide an update when that happens.

On a separate note, the full set of standard clauses taken together seem to say that if anything of any sort goes wrong, the seller will be responsible. Especially regarding issues that may be due to the previous owner, the clauses seem unnecessarily restrictive.

Ho hum, all will work out eventually I am sure.

davidmcn

dunroving wrote: »

Have now found a description of the standard missives clause, by way of a client guide from Mitchells Robertson. The 20-year rule is described more from the point of the seller providing certificates, etc., for work done within 20 years of ... etc., rather than the opposite (if > 20 years, nothing needs to be presented).

But there isn't any general provision stating that all consents need to be presented - the only obligation is under that clause. The grey area if often that if there's no paperwork, how do you prove something is over 20 years old? Which is one reason for sellers often deleting/amending the clause to make clear what works (if any) they think it covers.

On a separate note, the full set of standard clauses taken together seem to say that if anything of any sort goes wrong, the seller will be responsible.

Can you explain what things you're concerned about? The principle is still very much caveat emptor, the seller is only guaranteeing some specific points.

dunroving

davidmcn wrote: »

But there isn't any general provision stating that all consents need to be presented - the only obligation is under that clause. The grey area if often that if there's no paperwork, how do you prove something is over 20 years old? Which is one reason for sellers often deleting/amending the clause to make clear what works (if any) they think it covers.

Can you explain what things you're concerned about? The principle is still very much caveat emptor, the seller is only guaranteeing some specific points.

I was really just expressing a general sense that especially when the seller has purchased the house relatively recently, they are expected in several sections to take responsibility for work done by the previous owner. I did notice, though, that replacement window guarantees only go back 10 years, and I've been here for 11 years, so thankfully that's not an issue (i.e., they must be at least 10 years old.)

Even in my own situation (owned for ca. 11 years), I am finding that work done by the previous owner is coming back to haunt me. The irony is that I've been a conscientious owner, having got a whole raft of remedial work, with certificates for work such as electrical rewiring, etc. I don't have specific concerns - but then until the Council knocked on my door, I was blissfully assuming I was fine. At least as far as the attic is concerned, I am definitely covered by the 20 year rule.

dunroving

Update: Letter received from Council today outlining the works completed without building consent and requiring letter of comfort or retrospective consents application.

That's less than 5 business days between them receiving the mysterious call and me receiving this letter. Where's the Council when you need a hole in the road fixed?