No Building Regs on Full Chimney Removal

Climber_34

My partner and I are in the process of purchasing our first house and have received the survey (building survey, not structural). The note on it stated to check if there was a completion certificate for the removal of the chimney stack, chimney breast and the adjoining wall which were removed. We ran this by the vendors through our solicitor who informed us the vendor didn't realise building regs were needed and as such haven't got any approvals etc. 
For more context, the chimney stack was removed in 2005 down to bedroom roof level due to water ingress and the roof made good. In 2017, the remainder of the breast was removed (upstairs and down) and the downstairs wall removed to make an open plan kitchen diner. The photos the vendor has seems to show the wall removed wasn't load bearing (no joists tying into it, but we also have no way of knowing this for sure. 

Our solicitor has said as its over 12 months since the work was carried out the likelihood of enforcement is basically 0 (court injunction, no precedent for it) and that it basically comes down to how comfortable we are with the work.
Should we look at getting the vendors to apply for regularisation (and what are the rough time lengths for this)? If we're prepared to stomach the cost at a later date would you move in and sort out regularisation at a later date? 

Being first time buyers this is a red flag to us, but at the same time this seems to happen a lot of the time so we're not sure if we are over thinking it.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance

Petriix

If the house is still standing and there's no obvious movement (cracks etc.) then it's unlikely to cause any physical issues. Your only concern is satisfying your lender and maybe your insurer.

anselld

What is supporting the wall upstairs above the removed wall?

FreeBear

Climber_34 said:  In 2017, the remainder of the breast was removed (upstairs and down) and the downstairs wall removed to make an open plan kitchen diner. The photos the vendor has seems to show the wall removed wasn't load bearing (no joists tying into it, but we also have no way of knowing this for sure.

In all probability, there is (was?) a substantial amount of masonry forming the walls both downstairs and up - If this is the case, then the downstairs wall would most certainly have been load bearing. Even the walls were stud work, they could have been providing support for the roof structure.

You need a report from a structural engineer who can poke holes to see what is behind "stuff" to be sure that the house is structurally sound. In your shoes, I'd be wanting the vendor to get regularisation certificates and ensure that the work is safe.

AdrianC

Climber_34 said:

Our solicitor has said as its over 12 months since the work was carried out the likelihood of enforcement is basically 0 (court injunction, no precedent for it) and that it basically comes down to how comfortable we are with the work.

He's right. Bonus points to him for not trying to sell a useless indemnity.

Should we look at getting the vendors to apply for regularisation (and what are the rough time lengths for this)?

IF the work involved was up to spec at the time, that doesn't mean it's up to spec now... because the specs change. Anybody wanting to sign it off now is going to need to see what's behind the plasterboard - which means holes being cut.

If we're prepared to stomach the cost at a later date would you move in and sort out regularisation at a later date?

What would that achieve...? The qualify of work is the same, with or without paperwork. Nobody can come after you for lack of paperwork. If the upstairs work was iffy, it'd be showing after 15 yrs.

Climber_34

Petriix said:

If the house is still standing and there's no obvious movement (cracks etc.) then it's unlikely to cause any physical issues. Your only concern is satisfying your lender and maybe your insurer.

Our solicitor is looking into this and it is a concern with the insurer potentially not covering us. 

anselld said:

What is supporting the wall upstairs above the removed wall?

The remaining ash block wall is resting on the joists as it was previously. As far as we're aware there has been no other support put in. 

FreeBear said:

You need a report from a structural engineer who can poke holes to see what is behind "stuff" to be sure that the house is structurally sound. In your shoes, I'd be wanting the vendor to get regularisation certificates and ensure that the work is safe.

I'm definitely considering getting a structural engineer to take a look at it, but i'm well aware the vendor could refuse to allow this to be done. Also aware we could then walk away but the house is good value for money and we could see ourselves owning it for the next 5/10/15 years so don't want to lose it.

AdrianC said:

What would that achieve...? The qualify of work is the same, with or without paperwork. Nobody can come after you for lack of paperwork. If the upstairs work was iffy, it'd be showing after 15 yrs.

Purely to make it easier to sell. If we have these questions now, someone will undoubtedly have them in the future and it comes down to pragmatism - like we are now.
I'm not so concerned with the upstairs work as it was 15 years ago and as you say any sign would be showing, its the remainder of the work being done in 2017 which is slightly more concerning. Is 3 years long enough t show signs of problems?

davidmcn

Climber_34 said:

Petriix said:

If the house is still standing and there's no obvious movement (cracks etc.) then it's unlikely to cause any physical issues. Your only concern is satisfying your lender and maybe your insurer.

Our solicitor is looking into this and it is a concern with the insurer potentially not covering us.

People tend to misunderstand this point. You don't really need to "satisfy" your buildings insurer about anything, the point is more that buildings insurance doesn't cover the risk of remedying past shoddy building work.

Climber_34

davidmcn said:

People tend to misunderstand this point. You don't really need to "satisfy" your buildings insurer about anything, the point is more that buildings insurance doesn't cover the risk of remedying past shoddy building work.

Maybe this is my naivety, and hopefully you can correct me, but as an example if the roof fell in due to lack of support could the insurers refuse to pay out? Because building control would hopefully have picked up on the need for support and none was applied. 

Doozergirl

I don't see why the vendor would refuse a structural engineer. 

If the entire chimney stack and breast is removed then there's nothing left to come crashing through the ceiling to fall on your head.   The risk is lower than leaving something unsupported upstairs.   There is still an issue of lateral support, but if the house is attached, again the risk of there being an issue is lower.   

A structural engineer will tell you if the wall that was removed was load bearing. 

All you need is a visual inspection, there's not much need for a full report unless there is remedial work required AND you actually want to do it.  Keep costs down on it.  

The buildings insurance issue is a moot point if it has been assessed by a structural engineer.  There's no workmanship issue.    If you phone any insurer directly, they'll always given answers about things not being covered, but the people doing quotes know very little about insurance.  They are not  underwriters - I say that as someone who sold insurance for 2 years!  

You're talking about roofs being checked by building control etc but BC in its current guise didn't exist until 1986.  Most houses pre-date that and have zero paperwork to start out with. 

But, yes, if the roof was unsupported because of poor building work, there is a good chance that the insurers will refuse to pay out - however, some houses have zero foundations but insurers still pay out for underpinning.   Nothing is black and white.    If people really knew what was behind their plaster they'd be surprised at the state of their houses.  Insurers still pay out. 

If you have a decent survey, you have the surveyors PII, you have the opportunity to do double checks and then you have home insurance.  Things very rarely go wrong and what you've come across is very common.  

Climber_34

Doozergirl said:

I don't see why the vendor would refuse a structural engineer. 

If the entire chimney stack and breast is removed then there's nothing left to come crashing through the ceiling to fall on your head.   The risk is lower than leaving something unsupported upstairs.   There is still an issue of lateral support, but if the house is attached, again the risk of there being an issue is lower.   

A structural engineer will tell you if the wall that was removed was load bearing. 

All you need is a visual inspection, there's not much need for a full report unless there is remedial work required AND you actually want to do it.  Keep costs down on it.  

Thinking he could have refused one if it meant drilling holes and removing plaster, but if all they would need is a visual inspection then that shouldn't be a problem. Doozergirl said:

The buildings insurance issue is a moot point if it has been assessed by a structural engineer.  There's no workmanship issue.    If you phone any insurer directly, they'll always given answers about things not being covered, but the people doing quotes know very little about insurance.  They are not  underwriters - I say that as someone who sold insurance for 2 years!  

You're talking about roofs being checked by building control etc but BC in its current guise didn't exist until 1986.  Most houses pre-date that and have zero paperwork to start out with. 

But, yes, if the roof was unsupported because of poor building work, there is a good chance that the insurers will refuse to pay out - however, some houses have zero foundations but insurers still pay out for underpinning.   Nothing is black and white.    If people really knew what was behind their plaster they'd be surprised at the state of their houses.  Insurers still pay out. 

If you have a decent survey, you have the surveyors PII, you have the opportunity to do double checks and then you have home insurance.  Things very rarely go wrong and what you've come across is very common.  

You make all valid points, I think as first time buyers we're more worried and cautious, hence the questions. 

The common answer seems to be get a structural engineer out to look at it and if he's happy then all should be good. Then its just a question of if our mortgage lender (Nationwide) are happy with the lack of building regs for the 2017 work or whether we're forced to take an indemnity as part of this. 

davidmcn

Climber_34 said:

davidmcn said:

People tend to misunderstand this point. You don't really need to "satisfy" your buildings insurer about anything, the point is more that buildings insurance doesn't cover the risk of remedying past shoddy building work.

Maybe this is my naivety, and hopefully you can correct me, but as an example if the roof fell in due to lack of support could the insurers refuse to pay out? Because building control would hopefully have picked up on the need for support and none was applied.

Insurance policies cover specific risks - fire, flood, subsidence, etc - not just anything bad happening to the house. It's not typical for buildings policies to include the risk of "roof falling in because previous owner removed supporting structures". That's something you get a surveyor (or similar) to advise you on before you buy the house.