Re-roof, building regs and a late emerging faux-pas

DJBenson

Hi all

We are in the middle of selling our house and our (previously MIA for months until today) solicitor has finally got back to us and out of the blue asked us for a building regs certificate for getting our roof re-done a few years ago. The slight hitch is that we don't have a certificate, we had no idea one was required and our roofer (who whilst appearing reputable and very well regarded in the local area) failed to notify us that building regs applied. The work was a strip back of the main roof (the whole thing), replacing a few rotten pieces towards the outside and re-tile, so almost certainly within scope of building regs.

I'm at a bit of a loss what to do. Can we retrospectively apply (not the best timing for such a thing) or can we just go down the indemnity route? When we bought this house it had an extension for which the previous owner couldn't find the building regs certificate so she purchased a policy which would cover us in the event of an issue. I'm assuming that's an option here?

I will of course ask my solicitor but he's a bit...slow in responding.

Slithery

DJBenson said:

We are in the middle of selling our house and our (previously MIA for months until today) solicitor has finally got back to us and out of the blue asked us for a building regs certificate for getting our roof re-done a few years ago. The slight hitch is that we don't have a certificate, we had no idea one was required and our roofer (who whilst appearing reputable and very well regarded in the local area) failed to notify us that building regs applied. The work was a strip back of the main roof (the whole thing), replacing a few rotten pieces towards the outside and re-tile, so almost certainly within scope of building regs.

I'm at a bit of a loss what to do.

Tell your solicitor that you don't have one?
They've only asked you you to provide it (if possible), not insisted that it has to exist...
Tell the buyer that as with everything else they should commission there own surveys into anything they are concerned about.

Grabs39

Tell your solicitor.  Your solicitor will then tell the buyer (via their solicitor) that you don’t have one.

The buyer may or may not then ask for an indemnity.

Mickey666

If the roof was re-tiled with the same or equivalent tiles then I fail to see why the work would fall under building regs in the first place.  It's just a like-for-like repair job isn't it?

Besides, the previous comments are correct - you're only being asked so just answer honestly that you don't have any.  Just the same as you might not have an EICR or a gas safety certificate.  Neither are a legal requirement but everyone will ask for them.  if you don't have them then just say so.

DJBenson

Many thanks all, that makes absolute sense.

consequences

If they want the house they will do an indemnity. If not they will walk.

If they ask for discount offer to remarket it and call their bluff.

DJBenson

Mickey666 said:

If the roof was re-tiled with the same or equivalent tiles then I fail to see why the work would fall under building regs in the first place.  It's just a like-for-like repair job isn't it?

Besides, the previous comments are correct - you're only being asked so just answer honestly that you don't have any.  Just the same as you might not have an EICR or a gas safety certificate.  Neither are a legal requirement but everyone will ask for them.  if you don't have them then just say so.

The planning portal website says if more than 25% if repaired then it falls into the scope of building regs. I'm surprised too, it was a like for like (slightly different shade or grey but same material, only minor repair to the end timbers etc. Never even crossed our minds that it might fall under building regs.

DJBenson

consequences said:

If they want the house they will do an indemnity. If not they will walk.

If they ask for discount offer to remarket it and call their bluff.

We're almost at the re-market stage anyway, just before Christmas their sale fell through and we've been very patient in offering them a few weeks grace to sort it out but the chain is looking very brittle right now. Just glad our onward purcahse wasn't exactly our dream home 😄

FreeBear

DJBenson said: The planning portal website says if more than 25% if repaired then it falls into the scope of building regs. I'm surprised too, it was a like for like (slightly different shade or grey but same material, only minor repair to the end timbers etc. Never even crossed our minds that it might fall under building regs.

The main thrust of building regs in relation to reroofing is the thermal performance - You should be able to offset any changes to the roof by increasing the amount of insulation in the loft. Depending on how much insulation you have, getting building regs sign-off may be a formality.

eddddy

This will just be a standard enquiry by the buyer's solicitor - the buyers themselves may or may not care.

As others say, the buyer's mortgage lender might insist on indemnity insurance for this.

But the reason it might worry the buyers is that a Building Regs Certificate is an indication that the work was done to a good standard. Without the certificate, there's a risk that it was done to a poor standard by cowboys. If you have any other evidence - like an invoice from a reputable roofing company - that might reassure the buyers.

If you re-market and find another buyer, their solicitor will probably ask the same question. And again, the new buyer might or might not care.

Mickey666

DJBenson said:

Mickey666 said:

If the roof was re-tiled with the same or equivalent tiles then I fail to see why the work would fall under building regs in the first place.  It's just a like-for-like repair job isn't it?

Besides, the previous comments are correct - you're only being asked so just answer honestly that you don't have any.  Just the same as you might not have an EICR or a gas safety certificate.  Neither are a legal requirement but everyone will ask for them.  if you don't have them then just say so.

The planning portal website says if more than 25% if repaired then it falls into the scope of building regs. I'm surprised too, it was a like for like (slightly different shade or grey but same material, only minor repair to the end timbers etc. Never even crossed our minds that it might fall under building regs.

I would argue that the repairs were well under the 25% threshold and that the tiles were only removed for access.  It's unfortunate that all the roof tiles were replaced instead of reusing the original ones, which probably weakens your case, but given your position that's what I would argue.  At the very least it's a genuinely understandable reason for not having building control involved. 

A common issue with roof tile replacement is that heavier tiles are used as replacements (eg replacing slate with concrete tiles) and this might clearly affect the structural integrity of the roof, requiring strengthed timbers etc, which is why building control should be involved to ensure that what is essentially a new roof is structurally sound.

In this case, if you can confirm that the new roof tiles were genuinely like-for-like (except for the colour) and that they had to be removed for access to the timbers to be repaired, then you can legitimately argue that the roof structure has not been changed so why the need for building control involvement?  I don't know if that meets the letter of the law, but it's certainly a good defence against acting irresponsibly and is a good reason for not having BC certificates.