Buying property - historic removal of internal wall causing problems

EachPenny

JayZed wrote: »

We received our mortgage offer about six weeks ago, and a mortgage valuation inspection was undertaken at the time. The mortgage valuation noted that an internal load-bearing wall had been removed (although this was not noted on the homebuyers survey that we obtained around the same time.).

Our vendors (who have been in the property about 20 years) did not know when the relevant wall had been removed, and our solicitor was not able to find any evidence of building regs approval on the council’s online register (but that only goes back 10 years or so). So it looks likely that the wall was removed at least 20 years ago (and quite possibly 30 or 40 years ago), and we don’t know whether there was building regs approval.

That's where the error lies. As soon as the mortgage valuation flagged up the missing loadbearing wall then obtaining information from the Council should have been a priority. Relying on an online system with only a limited time coverage was not good enough, an enquiry going back to the year dot should have been made at that time.

JayZed wrote: »

4) If our solicitor can’t find any evidence of building regs, I can’t really see any option other than to get a structural survey done, which frankly seems absurd and disproportionate. Any ideas for any alternative approaches (short of looking for a new mortgage deal)?

If there is no evidence alteration work has been carried out in compliance with building regs then a full structural survey seems to be the very minimum you need.

Remember your priorities. You are buying this property, if it is likely to fall down or cost you money to put right then you need to know before you hand over your money. Don't be angry with the people who are trying to stop you making a potentially disastrous purchase.

Tom99

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I would get the structural engineers survey done but all that is likely to say is that there is no current evidence of structural movement, will that satisfy HSBC?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The only way of determining whether the correct load bearing beam or whatever has been inserted would be to open up the structure and see, and the seller may well not allow that in the circumstances.[/FONT]

JayZed

I think people are missing the point of my questions. I'm not asking whether or not I should get a structural survey done or whether there's a structural integrity risk.

I'm being told by my solicitor that this is unprecedented and that this is the first time in her experience (20+ years) that a bank has refused to accept an indemnity policy in a situation like this. I want to know whether it is true that this is a highly unusual request from the bank, or alternatively whether our solicitor should have advised us three weeks ago that we would need a structural survey if the buildings regs approval could not be found.

System

JayZed wrote: »

I think people are missing the point of my questions. I'm not asking whether or not I should get a structural survey done or whether there's a structural integrity risk.

I'm being told by my solicitor that this is unprecedented and that this is the first time in her experience (20+ years) that a bank has refused to accept an indemnity policy in a situation like this. I want to know whether it is true that this is a highly unusual request from the bank, or alternatively whether our solicitor should have advised us three weeks ago that we would need a structural survey if the buildings regs approval could not be found.

There is minimal risk if it's been in place for 20+ years if you were using your own money to buy it, you could make the call, unfortunately the lender wants this assurance before they give you the money.
I have never heard of indemnity not being accepted, it's invented by insurance companies to make money as there is zero risk in issuing a policy to protect against local authority enforcement - in all honesty, it could be that lenders are starting to understand what indemnity policies are for and starting to ask for real protection of their assets. Your solicitor is proposing a solution and unfortunately it's not been accepted by the lender, they wouldn't have known three weeks ago that indemnity wouldn't be accepted or that a structural survey would be required by the lender, I would imagine it would be the last thing they would have suggested

EachPenny

JayZed wrote: »

I think people are missing the point of my questions. I'm not asking whether or not I should get a structural survey done or whether there's a structural integrity risk.

I'm being told by my solicitor that this is unprecedented and that this is the first time in her experience (20+ years) that a bank has refused to accept an indemnity policy in a situation like this. I want to know whether it is true that this is a highly unusual request from the bank, or alternatively whether our solicitor should have advised us three weeks ago that we would need a structural survey if the buildings regs approval could not be found.

I don't know how common it is, but I don't find it at all surprising. The answer is in your original post:-

JayZed wrote: »

Our solicitor obtained a building regs indemnity policy (which obviously doesn’t cover structural defect risks per se, but covers the risk of the council requiring work to be put right). This was provided to our lender for approval more than two weeks ago. Our solicitor has repeatedly assured us repeatedly that this is all that the lender (HSBC) would require, and that the lender’s acceptance of this would be a formality and there was no risk of their not accepting it.

If I was the lender I'd only be marginally worried that the council might take enforcement action. I would be far more worried that the structure was potentially unsafe and could collapse, taking my security with it. The indemnity offers me no protection whatsoever against the latter.

The bank would no doubt also assess the risk of getting a buildings insurance policy to pay out when you'd been alerted in advance that the structure was potentially unsafe.

The only way of resolving this is to either get the Building Control records (if they exist), or to get a structural engineer to inspect and report. Otherwise you are purchasing a Jenga which could stand for 1000 years, or could collapse tomorrow. Why would a bank want to take that risk?

In terms of the level of risk, the 10/20/30/40 year thing is misleading. There is no evidence other than the vendors word when the work was carried out. The idea it has been standing for 10/20/30/40 years and therefore is low risk doesn't mean anything because it is quite possible the work was only done the day before you first viewed the property. The absence of building regulations approval is not evidence that the work was done a long time ago.

Your vendors might be lovely trustworthy people, but the bank doesn't care. It only looks at what the surveyor and paper trail are saying.

BrassicWoman

JayZed wrote: »

I want to know whether it is true that this is a highly unusual request from the bank, or alternatively whether our solicitor should have advised us three weeks ago that we would need a structural survey if the buildings regs approval could not be found.

So you want to know who to blame?

Sometimes, no one is to blame; things just are.

BrassicWoman

follow on thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5841678