Building regs needed, what does this actually mean IRT removing supporting structure

stuart45

1965 was a time when timber windows were sometimes relied on to support the outer skin. However for larger spans a Dorman Long was often used. 
Another method was an insitu concrete lintel tied to a soldier course. This was used for cavity as well as solid walls

greensalad

OK so possible the other windows around the house (including the one with visible shifting) was utilising timber windows for support, but the french doors would've been wide enough to require a proper supporting solution such as a long beam or lintel? 

stuart45

It's possible, but you can never be sure in the building trade. Quality control is a lot different to that in a factory, so even new houses may have things done that shouldn't be. For example it's not unknown for some bricklayers to sling a few trowels of mortar down the cavity to get rid of it at the end of the day, if the foreman says' use up the pug and that's it for the day'.

greensalad

  well that sounds frustrating!

I guess I just really don't know where to go from here?

We can ask if it was done by a builder, but that doesn't seem like it'll give us any more info than we currently have if we can't actually speak to that builder.

I don't know what this has for the legal implications of buying this home. If there's a high chance the brickwork could just crumble down because it's unsupported then I doubt this would be covered by insurance because I know about it now...

It seems like pulling off the plaster to see if there's a lintel there is the only option? And if there isn't one then what do I need to do? I can't purchase the house without the building regulations sign-off but I can't get that sign-off unless the support is confirmed. And if there's no support there then it needs to be added and who is going to pay for that? 

I guess I'm just really lost. How can I progress this sale without this building regulation sign-off?

stuart45

If the French doors are the original opening and it's only the removal of the frame that's the problem for support it's probably going to be fine. Section62 will probably have a few other ideas including the legal side of it. 

Section62

stuart45 said:

If the French doors are the original opening and it's only the removal of the frame that's the problem for support it's probably going to be fine. Section62 will probably have a few other ideas including the legal side of it. 

I agree.  If the door frame was something like that you'd expect for a typical french door then there wouldn't have been much substance to it, and the worst case is probably getting some 4x2 knocked up into a replacement.

The only possible curveball I can think of is if the original doors had side windows, with substantial posts between door and window - if those posts were removed so the opening is now= 2xdoors + 2xwindows, then the situation could be similar to replacing timber window mullions with floppy uPVC.  The solution then might require having to narrow the opening down, but still doesn't feel like a major problem to me. (obviously doing a lot of speculating and not having seen pictures)

If the OP was buying without a mortgage I think the sensible approach would be to get the SE to take a look after completion when they are doing the other investigations.

But the problem for the OP might be persuading the mortgage company that all is well (and a SE will take a look later). So this could be a case where a suitable indemnity policy actually has a practical benefit.

As far as regularising things with BC goes, if the OP is intending to do other structural work on the house before eventually selling then the obvious way forward appears to be including 'work' on this doorway into a much larger BR application (a good SE and builder should be able to contrive a way to do that), in which case when the next sale happens there is no query over lack of sign off on this opening.

greensalad

Section62 said:

stuart45 said:

If the French doors are the original opening and it's only the removal of the frame that's the problem for support it's probably going to be fine. Section62 will probably have a few other ideas including the legal side of it. 

But the problem for the OP might be persuading the mortgage company that all is well (and a SE will take a look later). So this could be a case where a suitable indemnity policy actually has a practical benefit.

As far as regularising things with BC goes, if the OP is intending to do other structural work on the house before eventually selling then the obvious way forward appears to be including 'work' on this doorway into a much larger BR application (a good SE and builder should be able to contrive a way to do that), in which case when the next sale happens there is no query over lack of sign off on this opening.

OK, thanks, this makes me feel a bit better.

I guess my query was whether I explicitly need BR in order to get the mortgage. An indemnity policy is exactly what we were thinking of looking at (and am I silly to expect the vendors to pay for this, seeing as they have removed the doors during their ownership without consulting a SE?) I just wasn't sure if there was much likliehood of the mortgage company going ahead with the offer with no BR. Obviously we intend to do this extension at some point in the future, and we've been looking at the house as a "10-15 year home" so we'd hopefully be able to do it by then, but you never know!

GrumpyDil

We had exactly the same issue on a bungalow with an upstairs conversion.

Our mortgage company were fine when we explained we intended to alter this into a proper rear extension anyway.