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

eamon

Your solicitor is seeing a a loft conversion that doesn't have evidence of meeting the criteria of being habital rooms with safe means of egress. That is his stumbling block.

Out of interest was the property marketed as having a loft conversion? The property next to me has from the outside "a dormer" conversion. But when it recently went on the market a couple of years ago it was excluded from being described as  habitable. A lack  of suitable stairs I think was/is the issue.

eddddy

eamon said:

Your solicitor is seeing a a loft conversion that doesn't have evidence of meeting the criteria of being habital rooms with safe means of egress. That is his stumbling block.

Not really - that's a misleading way of looking at it.

As the OP says in the first post, the solicitor is concerned about the local authority taking enforcement action. But the reality is the time limit (12 months) has passed for taking enforcement action. So the OP probably needs to concentrate on proving to the solicitor that 12 months has passed:

A section 36 enforcement notice cannot be served on you after the expiration of 12 months from the date of completion of the building work.
 Link: https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200128/building_control/38/building_regulations/3

Thrugelmir

On what basis was the property valued by the surveyor for the lender. With the conversion being an inhabitable space?  

Ondene

Thrugelmir said:

On what basis was the property valued by the surveyor for the lender. With the conversion being an inhabitable space?  

Yes, it was valued as a 3 bed property with loft room (I.e not habitable). My solicitor disagrees, saying that he cannot reasonably argue it isn't habitable if it was being presented on the estate agent's website with a bed in there and having an ensuite.

I have told him that I am willing to proceed under the assumption that it isn't habitable, so in this regard I don't believe he is acting in my best interests. 

Ondene

eddddy said:

eamon said:

Your solicitor is seeing a a loft conversion that doesn't have evidence of meeting the criteria of being habital rooms with safe means of egress. That is his stumbling block.

Not really - that's a misleading way of looking at it.

As the OP says in the first post, the solicitor is concerned about the local authority taking enforcement action. But the reality is the time limit (12 months) has passed for taking enforcement action. So the OP probably needs to concentrate on proving to the solicitor that 12 months has passed:

A section 36 enforcement notice cannot be served on you after the expiration of 12 months from the date of completion of the building work.
  

He is fully aware that the enforcement period has elapsed, but he is essentially telling me that this is irrelevant as the council can still investigate on the grounds that it is unsafe. At the point he has presented no further options to me than the vendor seeking regularisation. 

eddddy

Ondene said:

He is fully aware that the enforcement period has elapsed, but he is essentially telling me that this is irrelevant as the council can still investigate on the grounds that it is unsafe. At the point he has presented no further options to me than the vendor seeking regularisation. 

So you think that the solicitor is concerned that the property might be unsafe, and hence the council might take enforcement action.

That sounds bizarre.  To be clear, 'unsafe' in this context means a danger to life. e.g. part of the building is likely to collapse and kill somebody.

Did the mortgage valuer who visited the property suggest that the property might be unsafe? If so, did the valuer recommend a structural survey and/or a structural engineer's report?

TBH, if the mortgage valuer suspected that the property was unsafe, he/she would have contacted the council, who would have visited within a couple of hours to cordon off the property, board it up, and possibly arrange an emergency contractor to make the property safe

So it sounds like you're suggesting:

• A qualified buildings professional (presumably an RICS accredited mortgage valuer) has visited the property to value it and made no suggestion that the property is unsafe.
• But your solicitor - who is not a qualified buildings professional - is worried that the building might be unsafe.

I think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere.

ElephantBoy57

Ondene said:

He is fully aware that the enforcement period has elapsed, but he is essentially telling me that this is irrelevant as the council can still investigate on the grounds that it is unsafe. At the point he has presented no further options to me than the vendor seeking regularisation. 

Unsafe in what way? Structurally unsafe or unsafe as in a step ladder up to a bedroom? There will always be more risk in the event of a fire without steps and doors. Insurance companies will not like that.