Old loft conversion, before regs, no paperwork.

Andyg84

[FONT=&quot]Hi all, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After reading a lot of threads on here with similar issues I thought I would ask for some advice myself if anyone can help.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is regarding the house we own and live in since 2015. When we purchased it there was the usual few issue which cropped up, nothing detrimental, the only one causing an issue was the “attic room” which had no paperwork. To the untrained eye it looked like it had been sat there for many years, however I had the house surveyed and although the report had more detail, summed up - "it’s been like that for a long time so its fine".[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We were advised to take out indemnity insurance and ‘confirm’ we wasn’t going to use it as a bedroom which I felt was all pretty useless and just a way to get ‘around’ it. Nevertheless, being a first "owned" home we purchased it and all is well, no issues at all to this day.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However, me being me I like to know things and I noticed that in the past it had been advertised as a 3 bed compared to when we purchased it as a 2 bed with attic room (the photos clearly showed it as a bedroom) so this got me thinking about what is required for me to in the future list it as a 3 bedroom when we come to sell.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]These are the things I know:[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]- In the past the house has been advertised as a 3 bedroom.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]- I spoke to the previous owner who assured me the conversion had been done before he purchased it in the early 1980's but again no paperwork from what he can remember (old chap).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]- It looks to have been done very professionally.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now I know that when I do come to sell, I could probably do the same and sell as a 2 Bed with attic room but for valuation purposes and my own sanity I would like to find out what the deal is with work such as this that was done before "building regs" came in.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]From my understanding work "possibly" such as this had to get "signed off" or a "completion certificate" (am I right in thinking that?) and that would come from the local building authority? Do they hold records of this?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]My thoughts are that if it was a legit professional job I can’t imagine them not getting it signed off?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Any advice would be good. I have researched a lot but just can’t seem to find a solid answer. It seems around the time building regs came in, it all just seems a bit sketchy![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thanks[/FONT]

Doozergirl

It's an absolute myth that a room without a certificate is not a room.

The very simple answer to your question is that if it is structurally sound and safe to use, any loft conversion can be advertised as a room.

In your case it even pre-date the Building Act 1984 - as would your entire house. There is no question what it is. No one runs around saying that houses aren't houses with Building Regulations, nor do they even run around saying that extensions aren't extensions or that the bedrooms within them aren't bedrooms when they don't have sign off.

Estate Agents can get shy because they're afraid to misdescribe a property. Really, it's about your confidence and knowledge of the house as a vendor and how you talk to the estate agent about it.

My clients are buying a 6 bed house, two are in the loft and the stairs up there are the steepest and most winding I've ever seen. Headheight is pretty paltry, predates regulations, wouldn't have a chance of passing now. Neither wouod anything else in an 1850s house. They're rooms though and the house is a house!

Andyg84

Hi Doozergirl, Thanks for the insight and I agree with all you have said. That was the basis of me buying it as for me in my eyes it was a bedroom. The house is actually an 1870's house and the loft conversion looks like it was done around the same time! (for obvious reason im not suggesting it was).


I think what im trying to find out which im slowly learning I dont think I will ever get a definitive answer for, is at what point does a bedroom become an "official" bedroom based on, years, structure, previous usage ETC despite having no 'paperwork'.



I just find the whole thing confusing, I personally see the loft room absolutly no different to any other bedroom in the house, so why can it not be (In the eyes of the 'housing law' (what ever that is?)).


Thanks

Doozergirl

There is no 'housing law' it's just estate agents covering their backsides.

How do you know it's a conversion and not just original loft rooms if you think the conversion is that old? The Victorians wouldn't regularly have converted lofts but they might have had much simpler/rudimentary spaces for staff. I don't think HPI was such a problem that people had to extend and convert to be able to afford their houses!

I think if you think it's close to original, then I would say it is original. Saves the building regs argument altogether, not that anyone should be arguing over something even remotely that old.

There is no law at all that says what can be called a room in a house and what cannot.

sevenhills

Andyg84 wrote: »

I just find the whole thing confusing, I personally see the loft room absolutly no different to any other bedroom in the house, so why can it not be (In the eyes of the 'housing law' (what ever that is?)).

Thanks

I guess its like putting an old car through an MOT, it will have really bad emissions, but it's not tested by todays standards, but by the standards at the time when the car was made.

dunroving

Bearing in mind what has been said about the age of the house (which is a valid point), here is an alternative scenario that illustrates where some of the "What is a room?" or "What can/should be advertised as a room?" discussions and misunderstandings can arise.

The village I recently left in Scotland consists largely of 1960s ex-council properties that are now about 95% privately owned, thanks to Right to Buy. I'd guesstimate that at least 10% of these ex-Council properties have had the attic converted to some sort of room, and at least an additional 10% have had the attic boarded to make a higher grade storage space (as evidenced by the abundance of Velux-type windows).

Almost all of these upgrades have been done without local authority building warrants. When they are advertised for sale, the attic spaces are not advertised as a third or fourth bedroom because owners and estate agents perceive that this might arouse interest in the building warrant situation. The local authority WILL investigate the missing building warrants; it has a record of doing so.

I'm not saying this perspective is correct or incorrect, merely saying it exists, and why.

Andyg84

Doozergirl wrote: »

There is no 'housing law' it's just estate agents covering their backsides
How do you know it's a conversion and not just original loft rooms if you think the conversion is that old? The Victorians wouldn't regularly have converted lofts, but they might have had much simpler/rudimentary spaces for staff. I don't think HPI was such a problem that people had to extend and convert to be able to afford their houses!

I think if you think it's close to original, then I would say it is original. Saves the building regs argument altogether, not that anyone should be arguing over something even remotely that old.

There is no law at all that says what can be called a room in a house and what cannot.

Doozergirl, are you truly confident that there is no law defining when an area in a house can be classed as bedroom? I’m not saying there is, I just know without any paperwork I will be told by the estate agent/solicitor that it can’t be classed as one, so what grounds are they basing that on?

dunroving wrote:

When they are advertised for sale, the attic spaces are not advertised as a third or fourth bedroom because owners and estate agents perceive that this might arouse interest in the building warrant situation. The local authority WILL investigate the missing building warrants; it has a record of doing so.

This is what bugs me, I am nervous to start claiming it as bedroom as you hear the local authority can come in, condemn it and be made to rectify it at a cost. But my argument is... rectify it to what? Modern regs despite it being sat here longer than building regs even existed??

Its confusing and very frustrating.

sevenhills wrote:

I guess its like putting an old car through an MOT, it will have really bad emissions, but it's not tested by todays standards, but by the standards at the time when the car was made.

If that was the case then I would feel very confident in letting "who ever" in to check it against the standards at the time of build, however from what I read this isnt the case. It will be checked against modern building regs.

sevenhills

Andyg84 wrote: »

If that was the case then I would feel very confident in letting "who ever" in to check it against the standards at the time of build, however from what I read this isnt the case. It will be checked against modern building regs.

Highly energy efficient and near-zero-carbon new-build homes were brought in a few years ago, it would be impossible to force home owners to make their old houses to the same standards.

Doozergirl

Andyg84 wrote: »

Doozergirl, are you truly confident that there is no law defining when an area in a house can be classed as bedroom? I’m not saying there is, I just know without any paperwork I will be told by the estate agent/solicitor that it can’t be classed as one, so what grounds are they basing that on?

Yes, there is no law. The test of whether or not something is a room is whether or not something is structurally sound. Ask them to tell you which law defines that it cannot be a room! A lack of building regulations approval is not actual proof of a problem, just like the presence of building regulations approval is a guarantee of quality (unfortunately)

I've already given you examples, but I used to own a 16th Century house. It was one and a half storeys - it had three bedrooms in its loft. What paperwork would you suppose they ask for? It's the same paperwork that doesn't exist for a 1880s house, nor a 1930s house, nor a 1950s house.

The estate agent is classing it on what used to be called The Property Misdescriptions Act. I think it's been updated, but they are attempt backsides against misdescribing a property where the loft is not fit to be a habitable room. if they get it wrong and they've sold a modern 'conversion' that isn't safe. A modern conversion needs to meet the regulations in force at the time it was built. The Building Act that contains Building Regulations as we know them only came into force in 1984. There is nothing that needs to be produced from any work before that time. Even work after that time, if it is sound, no paperwork has to be produced to class any room in any house as such. The test is whether it is structurally sound. Thousands of houses exchange hands every day with zero approval paperwork handed over.

I can't prove that there is no law, but they can prove that there is one that demands the house is classified as anything else where there is no paperwork. You now know that common sense dictates that half the housing stock in this country doesn't have to produce paperwork for *anything* based on its age.

I don't think you do "know" that an EA or solicitor will tell you it can't be classed as a room, because they certainly do not all do that. As I've said, where EAs do it's because they're trying to cover their backsides against misdescribing a property where the loft is not fit to be a habitable room. Estate Agents market properties; in general they know very little about buildings and it's a lac of knowledge that leads them to be prudent where they may not need to be.

Andyg84 wrote: »

This is what bugs me, I am nervous to start claiming it as bedroom as you hear the local authority can come in, condemn it and be made to rectify it at a cost. But my argument is... rectify it to what? Modern regs despite it being sat here longer than building regs even existed??

Its confusing and very frustrating.

"You hear' where? They can't, and never would imagine doing it, because the work predates Building Regulations. You're confusing yourself with modern work and even then, they wouldn't measure the build against modern regulations at all. They'd seek to regularise it against what existed at the time, but they'd have to seek a court order to do so after the build is 12 months old. Why would they do that? Something would have to be a risk to life for them to do that.

I've been renovating period houses for 20 years. I have never, in that time had a building inspector even glance at something that wasn't currently under construction. Nothing in old houses meets current regulations, they only measure new work. The have no resources and no mandate.

Andyg84 wrote: »

If that was the case then I would feel very confident in letting "who ever" in to check it against the standards at the time of build, however from what I read this isnt the case. It will be checked against modern building regs.

It is not the case and there is no one to let in. Your work predates Building Regulations! There isn't even an argument to be had. You tell them it's original to the house, not a conversion, which I strongly suspect it isn't from what you've said. The Victorians did not convert lofts.

Post the right move details for your house from the sold prices section?

EachPenny

Doozergirl wrote: »

There is no 'housing law' it's just estate agents covering their backsides.
....
There is no law at all that says what can be called a room in a house and what cannot.

*Cough*.

Not quite the same thing you are talking about, but possibly the kind of thing where some of the OP's concerns are springing from:-
https://landlords.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/hmo-minimum-room-sizes-come-force-1-october-2018

This applies specifically to HMO's but in effect says that if a room is smaller than a certain size then it would be unlawful to allow it to be used as a bedroom.

There are other bits of old legislation dotted around, and very rarely enforced, which cover other aspects of what you can and cannot do in a domestic property, but most of this stuff has been quietly forgotten about.

The common problem with loft conversions isn't so much the size and levels of insulation, but the means of access and egress, and critically the means of escape. Even though a conversion might have been completed before there was a particular BR requirement for access/egress, if the conversion looks like it might be a bit dodgy in the event of a fire a smart EA is going to be nervous about selling it as a 'bedroom'... backside covering comes in to the equation, as you suggest.

Sr81

Hello ,
I will be grateful for some advice. We are in the process of buying a bungalow which has had a dormer conversion. This was done in the 1970’s as there is a planning application from 1975 however no proof of building regulations. The previous owner has also done a ground floor kitchen and porch extension but with no planning permission or building regulation and I don’t know when this was done and the house is being sold by a third party as the owner passed away recently so we are unable to verify anything. I understand from my solicitor that completion certificates were not introduced at the time and hence no need for it.

My main concern is that we have had a full building survey which identified settlements cracks to the ground floor extension and a structural engineer survey and cctv drains survey was advised. Structural engineer was rather alarmed that someone would do such a big dormer conversion with no regulations and he has confirmed in writing that he cannot confirm the structural integrity without intrusive investigation!

I have read that insurance company may refuse to pay out under a Buildings Insurance Policy if there is inadequate Building Regulation Consent for alterations to the property ?? And in our case the structural engineer has not been able to confirm the the dormer is structurally sound. Where does it leave us from an insurance point of view? My mortgage provider doesn’t know anything about the lack of regulations and my solicitor does not appear to be concerned about it .
I’m really confused and concerned, we like the house but not if I could potentially have problems with selling it in the future for lack of building regulations

Any advice would be much appreciated

Sorry for the length of my query

Thanks
SR