Seller has no building regulations and informed the authority

TSGate

Hi, I'm looking for some advice on a house my wife and I are in the process of buying.

The seller has knocked through the wall between the dining room and the kitchen. We found out a couple of days ago that the seller doesn’t have building regulations certification for this. It was done in 1994.

The seller contacted the local authority to ask if any certification was held and they confirmed there wasn’t any.

Due to the age of the works and our building survey coming back fine we don’t have any safety concerns. But our solicitor has said that for mortgage reasons this needs to be resolved. We won’t be able to speak with the solicitor until Wednesday so we were wondering if anyone can provide some insight on possible solutions (other than getting retrospective certification).

Our thoughts/questions are:

1) It seems the seller’s approach to the local authority now means the usual route of indemnity insurance is not possible. The estate agent and seller also seem to be aware of this. The estate agent got in touch and explained the seller is furious with her solicitor for not warning against contacting the authority. It seems her solicitor has just been forwarding queries without any sort of advice.

Is it still possible to get a customised indemnity insurance which takes into account the local authority having been approached (although no doubt costing a higher premium!)?

2) If insurance isn’t possible, would we then be looking at a comfort letter from the authority? Is this usually a suitable replacement for the insurance?

3) If the authority doesn’t issue such letters, is there anything that allows the age of the works and our survey to be taken into account on the basis that the risk of enforcement is very low?

4) If not, I'm assuming we have no further options but to pull out or get the seller to obtain certification?

Thanks all for any help!

G_M

[QUOTE=TSGate;75723217

1) It seems the seller’s approach to the local authority now means the usual route of indemnity insurance is not possible. The estate agent and seller also seem to be aware of this. The estate agent got in touch and explained the seller is furious with her solicitor for not warning against contacting the authority. It seems her solicitor has just been forwarding queries without any sort of advice.

Is it still possible to get a customised indemnity insurance which takes into account the local authority having been approached (although no doubt costing a higher premium!)?
No I'm afraid not.
It's like getting a diagnosis for cancer and then trying to take out private health insurance that includes cover for cancer.

2) If insurance isn’t possible, would we then be looking at a comfort letter from the authority? Is this usually a suitable replacement for the insurance?
Worth trying.
Anything to satisfy the lender.


3) If the authority doesn’t issue such letters, is there anything that allows the age of the works and our survey to be taken into account on the basis that the risk of enforcement is very low?
Yes-common sense.
Sadly lenders seem to often lack this.


4) If not, I'm assuming we have no further options but to pull out or get the seller to obtain certification?
Assuming the lender refuses to lend, yes.


Thanks all for any help![/QUOTE]
After 24 years no LA is going to enforce Building Regs.
After 24 years, any defect in the work would be apparant.
If the surveyor is happy, no reason not to proceed


Provided you can borrow the money you need.......

Section106

TSGate wrote: »

Hi, I'm looking for some advice on a house my wife and I are in the process of buying.

The seller has knocked through the wall between the dining room and the kitchen. We found out a couple of days ago that the seller doesn’t have building regulations certification for this. It was done in 1994.

The seller contacted the local authority to ask if any certification was held and they confirmed there wasn’t any.

Due to the age of the works and our building survey coming back fine we don’t have any safety concerns. But our solicitor has said that for mortgage reasons this needs to be resolved. We won’t be able to speak with the solicitor until Wednesday so we were wondering if anyone can provide some insight on possible solutions (other than getting retrospective certification).

Our thoughts/questions are:

1) It seems the seller’s approach to the local authority now means the usual route of indemnity insurance is not possible. The estate agent and seller also seem to be aware of this. The estate agent got in touch and explained the seller is furious with her solicitor for not warning against contacting the authority. It seems her solicitor has just been forwarding queries without any sort of advice.

Is it still possible to get a customised indemnity insurance which takes into account the local authority having been approached (although no doubt costing a higher premium!)?

2) If insurance isn’t possible, would we then be looking at a comfort letter from the authority? Is this usually a suitable replacement for the insurance?

3) If the authority doesn’t issue such letters, is there anything that allows the age of the works and our survey to be taken into account on the basis that the risk of enforcement is very low?

4) If not, I'm assuming we have no further options but to pull out or get the seller to obtain certification?

I woudn't rely on the passage of time to be proof that it is safe, and a building survey won't necessarily reveal a structural defect.

You are investing a large amount of your money and you and your family's lives into living in a property which has been shown to have been modified without building control involvement. If they didn't bother with that, then what other shortcuts were taken at the time?

The focus on the risk of enforcement is often misplaced. The risk of buying a structurally unsound home is the one people really ought to be worrying about.

Personally I would want the opinion of a structural engineer to confirm the work had been done correctly. Part of the cost of that would be offset by avoiding the cost of a (probably) useless indemnity policy.

I would seek a negotiation with the seller to have a structural engineer take a look and confirm all is well.

AdrianC

TSGate wrote: »

But our solicitor has said that for mortgage reasons this needs to be resolved.

Have you had that directly from the lender? Do they know the work was done a quarter of a century ago...?

davidmcn

G_M wrote: »

If not, I'm assuming we have no further options but to pull out or get the seller to obtain certification?
Assuming the lender refuses to lend, yes.

The same lenders are happy with the standard contractual position in Scotland, which is that everyone can ignore missing consents for work done more than twenty years ago. Different laws for building regs and planning admittedly but same principles.

That's assuming you're comfortable that the works really were done in 1994, which sometimes isn't easy to verify if there's no paperwork...

brianposter

You could, of course, put the wall back.

markin

I would think they just need to expose the beam end on one side to check its size and bearing is correct and safe, and someone to give a bit of paper.

Davesnave

markin wrote: »

I would think they just need to expose the beam end on one side to check its size and bearing is correct and safe, and someone to give a bit of paper.

Yes, but the exposure will involve a fair amount of damage to decoration and I'd expect both ends of the support to be checked by an engineer, who'd otherwise be putting their stamp of approval on something unseen.

However, the seller's willingness to allow invasive investigation might be better than it often is, due to the fact that their own actions may have made it necessary.

TSGate

Thanks all for your replies.

@G_M: That's helpful to know. Hopefully they will show some common sense but I doubt it based on other experiences I've read.

@Section106: We may get such a survey done. Are these often used to satisfy the mortgage company as well? The concern is that even if this is obtained, they may still say no and that's further money spent.

@AdrianC: The lender hasn't said that and is unaware of the situation at the moment. But as our solicitor is acting for them and his view is that this is an issue, then they will presumably follow his advice. I may try to contact them though to see if they will see sense in this.

@davidmcn: I wasn't aware of that, which makes this position outside of Scotland even stranger!

@brianposter: I wouldn't mind the wall going back, but I can't see the seller agreeing to us doing that

@markin and Davesnave: At the moment we would be trying to avoid anything evasive if there's another way round it. But it seems like we may have to do down this route if nothing else will be satisfactory.

AdrianC

TSGate wrote: »

@AdrianC: The lender hasn't said that and is unaware of the situation at the moment. But as our solicitor is acting for them and his view is that this is an issue, then they will presumably follow his advice. I may try to contact them though to see if they will see sense in this.

The lender won't "follow the solicitor's advice". They'll make their own mind up.

Right now, your solicitor is guessing. It may be a guess based on some past experience, sure, but it's still a guess.

unforeseen

I would seek a negotiation with the seller to have a structural engineer take a look and confirm all is well.

I would expect the buyer to pay all the costs for this including making good.

If buyer carries on with purchase after the inspection then negotiate a reduction in price to cover part of the cost. If buyer pulls out then tough.