Vendor won't seek regularisation and Solicitor won't let me buy

princeofpounds

[quote]The loft conversion was carried out in 2012, so the enforcement period is well gone. I'm told they can only investigate it now on the grounds that it might be unsafe. [/quote]
Ummm that was a rather important piece of information to leave out! It makes it much more understandable why the vendor isn't that bothered about regularisation and makes the solicitor's decision a bit harder to understand.

[quote]It would be pretty unusual for that to happen.[/quote]
Yes, but it's the legal opinion of the solicitor that matters in practice, not the risk of enforcement. Having said that, I had assumed that the enforcement period had passed because I've never encountered it as a problem in the past if that was the case.

OP - you need to get the solicitor to fully explain their grounds for this decision and make sure they understand the enforcement period has passed. Sometimes they don't know things you assume they know.

davidmcn

Another problem with a lack of paperwork is evidencing when the works were done - do you actually know the conversion was done in 2012?

SmashedAvacado

Have you had a survey - if your survey indicates that it is safe, and they provide that to you, then surely the solicitor can opine that on the basis of the survey, the chances of enforcement are very low. 

jimbo2108

I had a problem with this when buying my recent property, the out houses have been refurbished and a roof between the main house and outhouse has been built. They were asking for building regs, but this was completed over 10 years ago, so isn't a problem as retrospective action can't take place. Not too sure as to why the solicitor is raising this as an issue?

thearchitect

We are approached now and again by people seeking regularisation of loft conversions and the like (under the Scottish regulatory regime).

The principle problems wer encounter are:

1.  Failure to address structure in a way which can be supported by calculation, notwithstanding use in the interim period.

2. Fire separation where the property becomes three storey.

3. Means of escape (often the stairs to the upper apartments land in a habitable apartment).

These can all make regularisation a costly exercise.

Why don't you seek the advice of an architect or building surveyor?  A few hundred Pounds might allow you to quantify the risk and make a decision on the best way forward.

Ondene

thearchitect said:

We are approached now and again by people seeking regularisation of loft conversions and the like (under the Scottish regulatory regime).

The principle problems wer encounter are:

1.  Failure to address structure in a way which can be supported by calculation, notwithstanding use in the interim period.

2. Fire separation where the property becomes three storey.

3. Means of escape (often the stairs to the upper apartments land in a habitable apartment).

These can all make regularisation a costly exercise.

Why don't you seek the advice of an architect or building surveyor?  A few hundred Pounds might allow you to quantify the risk and make a decision on the best way forward.

Thank you for your comment. These are all points I think may be reasons for regularisation failing if the vendor applied. I fully understand that extra work will likely be required and structural calcs may be required.

I have already made a decision to push forward with the purchase, it is my solicitor working on the lenders behalf who is preventing this despite the lender not specifically asking for anything (see my first post). I don't see how this isn't a conflict of interest issue at this point?

Alter_ego

Post edited

davidmcn

Ondene said:

thearchitect said:

We are approached now and again by people seeking regularisation of loft conversions and the like (under the Scottish regulatory regime).

The principle problems wer encounter are:

1.  Failure to address structure in a way which can be supported by calculation, notwithstanding use in the interim period.

2. Fire separation where the property becomes three storey.

3. Means of escape (often the stairs to the upper apartments land in a habitable apartment).

These can all make regularisation a costly exercise.

Why don't you seek the advice of an architect or building surveyor?  A few hundred Pounds might allow you to quantify the risk and make a decision on the best way forward.

I have already made a decision to push forward with the purchase, it is my solicitor working on the lenders behalf who is preventing this despite the lender not specifically asking for anything (see my first post). I don't see how this isn't a conflict of interest issue at this point?

If it is a conflict of interest then how would you like it to be resolved? At the very least your lender could instruct a separate firm, who would have to start from scratch (at your expense) and may well end up raising similar concerns about the loft conversion.

2012 may be technically out of scope for enforcement action but I'd say it's normal with such a recent conversion for buyers/lenders to expect at least indemnity cover to be provided - which it can't here because you know somebody has recently rattled the council's cage.

What did your surveyor say about the conversion?

thearchitect

Ondene said:

Thank you for your comment. These are all points I think may be reasons for regularisation failing if the vendor applied. I fully understand that extra work will likely be required and structural calcs may be required.

The structural calculations may not give you the answer which you want.

eddddy

I suspect that the issue is that your solicitor has no evidence that the conversion was done in 2012, and more importantly no evidence to show it was not done within the last 12 months.

Ask your solicitor if that is the case, and if so, what evidence would be acceptable to him.

Examples of evidence you might be able to find include: builder's invoices, sworn statements from neighbours, old estate agents sales particulars, old surveyors reports, surveyor's opinions in new reports, dated Google Streetview / Google Earth photos (assuming aspects of the conversion are visible from the outside).

That kind of evidence is acceptable to councils when considering planning issues, but I don't know what evidence a solicitor would look for.