Conditionally Approved Building Regulation & Indemnity Insurance

lee912

Buying a house which was extended in 1995. The LA search shows a building regulations approval with "Decision: Conditional Approval (1995)" and "Status: Completion Unsatisfactory (2000)". I've read many posts on this forum and most of them are related to the "lack" of building regulation approval. Is there any difference between the lack of approval and the conditional approval with completion unsatisfactory with regard to the LA's enforcement right/power?

Is it possible to get an indemnity policy? I find one insurer saying (on its website) about its policy:

"This policy covers you should you suffer financial loss as a direct result of an enforcement or attempted enforcement of a breach of planning and/or building regulations approval if works have been carried out to the property for which either the appropriate planning consents and/or building regulations approval were required but were never obtained or cannot be located, or a condition of any consent and/or building regulations approval has not or may not have been complied with."

But it also says:
"There is no cover if any applications for planning permission and/or buildings regulations have been refused in respect of the works prior to the start of the policy, or if there are any pending applications for planning permission and/or building regulations approval at the start of the policy."

My question is whether the application in 1995 is technically classified as refused or approved? Is the unsatisfactory completion in 2000 automatically means it has been refused?

If an off-the-shelf policy is not applicable, is it possible to get a bespoke policy? Any experience in getting one?

Many thanks!

AdrianC

The 1995 decision was to approve, but there were some things that needed to be done. Were they?
The 2000 decision was to refuse.

I wouldn't have thought an indemnity would count for anything, because the usual caveat is that the local authority don't know. They do.

But it's all a bit academic, because there's nothing the LA can do about it now. The issue is not one that an indemnity policy will sort... it's whether you want to resolve the basic issues that led to the sign-off being refused... IF they still apply.

lee912

My surveyor's opinion is the extension is in good condition based on his inspection and the fact that the works were done 20+ years ago. The reason of refusal can only be obtained from the LA. An indemnity policy is for the mortgage and the future resale. If the LA is notified, it is 100% no insurer is willing to insure it. I am thinking if a bespoke policy is still possible given the current situation...

user1977

lee912 said:

My surveyor's opinion is the extension is in good condition based on his inspection and the fact that the works were done 20+ years ago. The reason of refusal can only be obtained from the LA. An indemnity policy is for the mortgage and the future resale. If the LA is notified, it is 100% no insurer is willing to insure it. I am thinking if a bespoke policy is still possible given the current situation...

But as above, it's too late for enforcement to happen, even if the council were interested enough to do so (which they won't be). If a lender or future buyer thinks they need insurance, they're daft (or poorly advised).

How old is the rest of the house, and has that been signed off?