FTB - House has had internal wall removed with no building regs

jonnydh

Hi - I'm a first time buyer and hoping for some advice please, as I'm starting to panic a little we are a couple of weeks prior to exchange.

I had a HomeBuyers report carried out which noted an internal wall had been removed a few years ago (3-4) between the kitchen and diner, and that my solicitor should get confirmation it had adhered to building regs.

However the sellers have stated that they didn't require building regs as it was an internal wall.

I rang the surveyor and he said that it's more likely than not that the wall WASN'T a load baring wall, and he couldn't see any evidence in the walls or ceilings of issues resulting from it's removal, but only way to be certain would be for a structural engineer to take a look.

My solicitors have got the sellers to take an indemnity policy out on my behalf, but I'm aware thats not really worth the paper it's written on.

So I guess my question is:

• Should I get a structural engineer to check the work was completed to an adequate standard (I'm aware this will be invasive for the seller).
• will the lack of building regs cause an issue when:

                  Insuring my home
        If i come to sell in the future

Or alternatively am I just worrying about nothing! (Everyone I speak to seems to think so, but thought I'd ask the internet too....).

Further context: The wall in question ran perpendicular to the rear wall. They've also had trifolding doors put in the rear wall (again no building regs), and the surveyor noted some cracks above the openings in the outer rear wall, and that the rear wall wasn't fully straight, which set off alarm bells. However we've had a builder check this out and he said that it is a non/minor issue, doesn't require immediate attention and is very common in houses of this age (1930s/40s).

Thanks in advance!

user1977

jonnydh said:

• Should I get a structural engineer to check the work was completed to an adequate standard (I'm aware this will be invasive for the seller).

Does your surveyor think you should?

will the lack of building regs cause an issue when:                  Insuring my home

No.

        If i come to sell in the future

Only if it becomes apparent that there's actually something structurally wrong with the work.

AnotherJoe

I would get a structural engineer in from a safety POV.

Nothing else matters, eg building control etc.

I am not a builder / engineer but I'd have thought that, if it is non load bearing that should  be apparent with little if any damage being caused to ascertain that?

FreeBear

jonnydh said: Further context: The wall in question [between the kitchen and diner] ran perpendicular to the rear wall. They've also had trifolding doors put in the rear wall (again no building regs), and the surveyor noted some cracks above the openings in the outer rear wall, and that the rear wall wasn't fully straight, which set off alarm bells. However we've had a builder check this out and he said that it is a non/minor issue, doesn't require immediate attention and is very common in houses of this age (1930s/40s).

Quite often, internal walls such as this are constructed of brick or block and provide lateral support for the external wall. Removing the internal can lead to instability and bulging of the external wall.

As for the door - As long as an appropriately sized lintel has been used, that part of the structure should be OK. But without sight of any structural engineer's calculations and building regs sign off, you won't know. I doubt if the vendor would allow for invasive checks to be made by an S.E. so your call as to whether you proceed with this purchase.

If the current owners are blasé about compliance with regulations on the two points you can see, what else has been done that could potentially be dangerous (or expensive to rectify) ?

GDB2222

I agree with Freebear. I would either have a structural engineer report, with full access no matter how much damage that causes, or I would run away. I don’t think that the sellers will allow invasive investigations, so I would just run.

The idea that internal walls have nothing to do with building control is just ridiculous.

goodwithsaving

From a home owner POV, I have removed an internal wall which is not load bearing and many neighbours have removed the same one (our homes are the same layout etc.). BC exempt. I think sometimes buyers make a fuss because they're told to by surveyors and solicitors, not because they need to.
If there's no cracking etc. then it's likely to be fine. If a buyer wanted to do anything intrusive (removing paint etc.) without commitment on purchase, I'd tell them to get lost.

FreeBear

goodwithsaving said: From a home owner POV, I have removed an internal wall which is not load bearing and many neighbours have removed the same one (our homes are the same layout etc.). BC exempt. I think sometimes buyers make a fuss because they're told to by surveyors and solicitors, not because they need to.

Whilst an internal wall may not be supporting a load from above, it could be providing lateral support (buttressing) for an adjoining wall. To knock a wall out without taking expert advice is foolish at best - And by expert, I don't mean a builder, neighbour, or some 'erbert on the internet.

GDB2222

goodwithsaving said:

From a home owner POV, I have removed an internal wall which is not load bearing and many neighbours have removed the same one (our homes are the same layout etc.). BC exempt. I think sometimes buyers make a fuss because they're told to by surveyors and solicitors, not because they need to.
If there's no cracking etc. then it's likely to be fine. If a buyer wanted to do anything intrusive (removing paint etc.) without commitment on purchase, I'd tell them to get lost.

But the OP says " the rear wall wasn't fully straight".

jonnydh

GDB2222 said:

goodwithsaving said:

From a home owner POV, I have removed an internal wall which is not load bearing and many neighbours have removed the same one (our homes are the same layout etc.). BC exempt. I think sometimes buyers make a fuss because they're told to by surveyors and solicitors, not because they need to.
If there's no cracking etc. then it's likely to be fine. If a buyer wanted to do anything intrusive (removing paint etc.) without commitment on purchase, I'd tell them to get lost.

But the OP says " the rear wall wasn't fully straight".

So just dug out the report again, and the exact quote is:

"Some cracking and distortion was noted to the rear wall which I believe has been caused by lack of support over the openings. Repairs and improvements are needed to prevent further movement".

"The walls are not completely straight and plumb; however this is not considered serious and no repairs are necessary".

As I say, the above points were checked out by a builder who thought they were a non-issue, my concern is around the context of the removal of the inner wall and whether that has accelerated this.

Thank-you all for your comments by the way, really appreciate it.

Am I crazy to think I'm happy to proceed with the purchase, but when move in will make it a first job to get a S.E to take a look and incorporate their recommendations? 

GDB2222

jonnydh said:

GDB2222 said:

goodwithsaving said:

From a home owner POV, I have removed an internal wall which is not load bearing and many neighbours have removed the same one (our homes are the same layout etc.). BC exempt. I think sometimes buyers make a fuss because they're told to by surveyors and solicitors, not because they need to.
If there's no cracking etc. then it's likely to be fine. If a buyer wanted to do anything intrusive (removing paint etc.) without commitment on purchase, I'd tell them to get lost.

But the OP says " the rear wall wasn't fully straight".

So just dug out the report again, and the exact quote is:

"Some cracking and distortion was noted to the rear wall which I believe has been caused by lack of support over the openings. Repairs and improvements are needed to prevent further movement".

"The walls are not completely straight and plumb; however this is not considered serious and no repairs are necessary".

As I say, the above points were checked out by a builder who thought they were a non-issue, my concern is around the context of the removal of the inner wall and whether that has accelerated this.

Thank-you all for your comments by the way, really appreciate it.

Am I crazy to think I'm happy to proceed with the purchase, but when move in will make it a first job to get a S.E to take a look and incorporate their recommendations? 

I don't think that's entirely daft. If the place is a death trap, you ought to know about it. I, personally, would not buy a place where the seller has such a blasé attitude to structural safety.

edgex

What's supporting the upstairs floors, & any other walls above where this one was removed?
Does the opening in the rear wall look original, or have they widened it?