Buying a property that has an extension without planning permission/building regs

tsolrm

The extension was not built by the current vendor (which puts it at at least 4 years old) and it seems that the vendor has indemnity insurance for when they bought it. The insurance is only a couple of hundred quid so it seems that risks of council enforcement action are small. Should I be concerned about property resale value?

davidmcn

Not because of the lack of paperwork, no.

tsolrm

davidmcn said:

Not because of the lack of paperwork, no.

I have been told by numerous parties now not to accept idemnity insurance and get retrospective building regs signed off so I am not sure what to do now.

davidmcn

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

Not because of the lack of paperwork, no.

I have been told by numerous parties now not to accept idemnity insurance and get retrospective building regs signed off so I am not sure what to do now.

What are the credentials of these numerous parties? Have they explained their rationale? There's no risk of the council popping round to enforce it after this length of time.

tsolrm

davidmcn said:

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

Not because of the lack of paperwork, no.

I have been told by numerous parties now not to accept idemnity insurance and get retrospective building regs signed off so I am not sure what to do now.

What are the credentials of these numerous parties? Have they explained their rationale? There's no risk of the council popping round to enforce it after this length of time.

 Indemnity insurance offers 0 protection that's why it's so cheap. It is voided under many conditions and it doesn't actually solve the issue of the dodgy extension. This was confirmed during my own research plus by the surveyor and a builder that I spoke to. 

Orchid96

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

Not because of the lack of paperwork, no.

I have been told by numerous parties now not to accept idemnity insurance and get retrospective building regs signed off so I am not sure what to do now.

What are the credentials of these numerous parties? Have they explained their rationale? There's no risk of the council popping round to enforce it after this length of time.

 Indemnity insurance offers 0 protection that's why it's so cheap. It is voided under many conditions and it doesn't actually solve the issue of the dodgy extension. This was confirmed during my own research plus by the surveyor and a builder that I spoke to. 

This was the main reason I went for  retrospective building completion certificate even though the alteration work didn't even include structural changes. I am in trouble now as I don't have the option to get indemnity insurance and the sale is delayed - all explained in my post here : -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6240817/house-sale-without-building-completion-certificate-please-advice#latest

tsolrm

Orchid96 said:

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

Not because of the lack of paperwork, no.

I have been told by numerous parties now not to accept idemnity insurance and get retrospective building regs signed off so I am not sure what to do now.

What are the credentials of these numerous parties? Have they explained their rationale? There's no risk of the council popping round to enforce it after this length of time.

 Indemnity insurance offers 0 protection that's why it's so cheap. It is voided under many conditions and it doesn't actually solve the issue of the dodgy extension. This was confirmed during my own research plus by the surveyor and a builder that I spoke to. 

This was the main reason I went for  retrospective building completion certificate even though the alteration work didn't even include structural changes. I am in trouble now as I don't have the option to get indemnity insurance and the sale is delayed - all explained in my post here : -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6240817/house-sale-without-building-completion-certificate-please-advice#latest

The problem is that I don't think this extension would be granted retrospective building completion certificate because they have changed the conservatory into an extension. If the foundations aren't deep enough - the whole thing would need knocking down and rebuilding.

davidmcn

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

Not because of the lack of paperwork, no.

I have been told by numerous parties now not to accept idemnity insurance and get retrospective building regs signed off so I am not sure what to do now.

What are the credentials of these numerous parties? Have they explained their rationale? There's no risk of the council popping round to enforce it after this length of time.

Indemnity insurance offers 0 protection that's why it's so cheap. It is voided under many conditions and it doesn't actually solve the issue of the dodgy extension.

Correct. So if there are actual problems with the quality of work, you can either get those sorted, or be prepared for buyers to account for it in the price if their surveyors comment on it (in the same way that they'll be looking at the rest of the construction of the property).

The paperwork isn't all that relevant, especially if you're talking about something done years ago - it could have deteroriated (or had other stuff done to it) since it was signed off, and being compliant with building regulations just means it ticked some minimum boxes, not necessarily that it was done particularly well.

tsolrm

davidmcn said:

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

Not because of the lack of paperwork, no.

I have been told by numerous parties now not to accept idemnity insurance and get retrospective building regs signed off so I am not sure what to do now.

What are the credentials of these numerous parties? Have they explained their rationale? There's no risk of the council popping round to enforce it after this length of time.

Indemnity insurance offers 0 protection that's why it's so cheap. It is voided under many conditions and it doesn't actually solve the issue of the dodgy extension.

Correct. So if there are actual problems with the quality of work, you can either get those sorted, or be prepared for buyers to account for it in the price if their surveyors comment on it (in the same way that they'll be looking at the rest of the construction of the property).

The paperwork isn't all that relevant, especially if you're talking about something done years ago - it could have deteroriated (or had other stuff done to it) since it was signed off, and being compliant with building regulations just means it ticked some minimum boxes, not necessarily that it was done particularly well.

 Of-course the paperwork is relevant, don't be silly. The work is less than 5 years old. The issue is not missing paperwork but WHY it is missing. What if the work done can never possibly comply with building regs? The property is then forever tainted with it because you wouldn't be able to get any work done on it AND get building regs sign off. Not to mention implications to home insurance, problems with resale etc etc. I can't understand why people even try peddle this indemnity insurance bs it's completely pointless.

Orchid96

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

Not because of the lack of paperwork, no.

I have been told by numerous parties now not to accept idemnity insurance and get retrospective building regs signed off so I am not sure what to do now.

What are the credentials of these numerous parties? Have they explained their rationale? There's no risk of the council popping round to enforce it after this length of time.

Indemnity insurance offers 0 protection that's why it's so cheap. It is voided under many conditions and it doesn't actually solve the issue of the dodgy extension.

Correct. So if there are actual problems with the quality of work, you can either get those sorted, or be prepared for buyers to account for it in the price if their surveyors comment on it (in the same way that they'll be looking at the rest of the construction of the property).

The paperwork isn't all that relevant, especially if you're talking about something done years ago - it could have deteroriated (or had other stuff done to it) since it was signed off, and being compliant with building regulations just means it ticked some minimum boxes, not necessarily that it was done particularly well.

 Of-course the paperwork is relevant, don't be silly. The work is less than 5 years old. The issue is not missing paperwork but WHY it is missing. What if the work done can never possibly comply with building regs? The property is then forever tainted with it because you wouldn't be able to get any work done on it AND get building regs sign off. Not to mention implications to home insurance, problems with resale etc etc. I can't understand why people even try peddle this indemnity insurance bs it's completely pointless.

Because the lender want to see an indemnity insurance 

davidmcn

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

tsolrm said:

davidmcn said:

Not because of the lack of paperwork, no.

I have been told by numerous parties now not to accept idemnity insurance and get retrospective building regs signed off so I am not sure what to do now.

What are the credentials of these numerous parties? Have they explained their rationale? There's no risk of the council popping round to enforce it after this length of time.

Indemnity insurance offers 0 protection that's why it's so cheap. It is voided under many conditions and it doesn't actually solve the issue of the dodgy extension.

Correct. So if there are actual problems with the quality of work, you can either get those sorted, or be prepared for buyers to account for it in the price if their surveyors comment on it (in the same way that they'll be looking at the rest of the construction of the property).

The paperwork isn't all that relevant, especially if you're talking about something done years ago - it could have deteroriated (or had other stuff done to it) since it was signed off, and being compliant with building regulations just means it ticked some minimum boxes, not necessarily that it was done particularly well.

 Of-course the paperwork is relevant, don't be silly. The work is less than 5 years old.

Is it? Ok, all you said in the OP is that it was somewhere over 4 years old.

The issue is not missing paperwork but WHY it is missing. What if the work done can never possibly comply with building regs?

A huge proportion of properties can never possibly comply with current building regulations. Many of them predate building regulations even existing. It really isn't a big problem. Enforcement doesn't happen unless it's something actually causing a hazard to third parties. "Why" it's missing is often just because whoever did the work couldn't be bothered applying, not that it wouldn't have been signed off. But if you want to know what (if anything) is actually wrong with it, get somebody to have a look at it. Do you have all the paperwork for the original construction of the property?

The property is then forever tainted with it because you wouldn't be able to get any work done on it AND get building regs sign off.

No it isn't "forever tainted". As time goes on it becomes ancient history. People do not typically try to get retrospective sign off.

Not to mention implications to home insurance

There are no problems with home insurance, that's a popular myth.