Buyers solicitors refusing indemnity policy

Section62

delirious said:

...but I did witness him putting the steel work in,

The point though is that if he didn't know (or misled you) about the need for BR approval, then you can't have any confidence that the steelwork he put in is suitable for the job.

It isn't just a case of putting in a steel beam. The beam section needs to be the correct depth and breadth, the steel has to be the correct grade (or better), the beam has to be positioned correctly to support the load above, and the ends have to have sufficient support (bearing).  If any of it required bolting, the bolts need to be the correct grade and tightened to the right torque. If any welding was needed, it had to be done by a coded welder.  This is why the BR approval and inspection process is in place.

A photo of the steelwork confirms something was put in, but not whether the thing is adequate for the job. Also, though very unlikely in your case, it isn't unknown for things to be done for the inspection (or for photographs to be taken), and then removed/altered as soon as the coast is clear.

If you can't be confident that the job was done correctly then you cant expect the buyer buyer's lender to accept the assurances you are giving.

delirious said:

...and while I know that just because there's been no movement yet doesn't mean it's done correctly, I would have thought if there was an issue, it would have had at least some movement in the past 7 years.

This is a common misconception.  Structures can and do fail without prior (detectable) movement.  It is a particular issue where the structural element is hidden from view (e.g. an enclosed beam) or where coatings (e.g. plaster/paint/wallpaper) can mask secondary signs.

Although the symptoms of movement (e.g. cracks on walls) are often the first sign of a problem, the absence of these doesn't prove anything about the underlying structural integrity. At least not to the satisfaction of a nervous buyer, or a cautious lender.

Jeepers_Creepers

If you really don't want to go to the hassle of getting retrospective BRegs, Delirious - and I wouldn't blame you - then it appears you hold all the cards and are in the very fortunate position of being able to walk away without loss.

Not that you should walk away, tho' - that has to be the buyer's call. (Why is the solicitor seemingly keen for you to make that move?! Possibly because they are on a 'no fees if it fails to complete through no fault of their client', so could perhaps recoup the sum via insurance? I don't know.)

There are countless houses with opened doorways, hidden beams, and no BRegs. Yes, these warrant 'consideration' when buying, but how many folk actually get a surveyor out to expose these openings for confirmation? Very few that I'm aware of. I have two in my own home, one internal, one ext. Did they give me a second's concern? No. Why? Because it had been like that for ages, and there are no signs of movement.

And yours has the significant added - and rare - benefit of photographic evidence of a steel being in position. Does this 'prove' it conforms? Of course not, but it's getting seriously into the realms of "What the hell more do you want, for pity's sakes?!"

If the buyer is genuinely concerned, then they can factor the cost of having it exposed and checked into their purchase offer. And you can say 'Non'.

The other 'issue' just makes me shake my head in virtual disbelief; the opening goes directly into a connie, and this clearly does not 'conform'. Well duh. This is sorted - by the buyer if they want to - by fitting doors. But if they decide that the energy loss is worth the 'open plan' look, then they won't bother. That's their call.

For a seller to be expected to make good this 'deficiency' in anticipation of a concern is nuts, imo. UNLESS, of course, they 'have' to, to enable the sale to proceed (ie, you are desperate not to lose a sale/purchase).

You are not.

What's the worst that could happen if the buyer pulls out? Seemingly a delay while another buyer is found, coupled with a quite-possible extra few £k in your pocket since it seems these folk bagged a bargain. (Ok, the worst could be that the same issue comes up again... Or, the market collapses!)

Your offer of an indemnity - for what they're worth... - is more than fair.

delirious

Jeepers_Creepers said:

If you really don't want to go to the hassle of getting retrospective BRegs, Delirious - and I wouldn't blame you - then it appears you hold all the cards and are in the very fortunate position of being able to walk away without loss.

Not that you should walk away, tho' - that has to be the buyer's call. (Why is the solicitor seemingly keen for you to make that move?! Possibly because they are on a 'no fees if it fails to complete through no fault of their client', so could perhaps recoup the sum via insurance? I don't know.)

There are countless houses with opened doorways, hidden beams, and no BRegs. Yes, these warrant 'consideration' when buying, but how many folk actually get a surveyor out to expose these openings for confirmation? Very few that I'm aware of. I have two in my own home, one internal, one ext. Did they give me a second's concern? No. Why? Because it had been like that for ages, and there are no signs of movement.

And yours has the significant added - and rare - benefit of photographic evidence of a steel being in position. Does this 'prove' it conforms? Of course not, but it's getting seriously into the realms of "What the hell more do you want, for pity's sakes?!"

If the buyer is genuinely concerned, then they can factor the cost of having it exposed and checked into their purchase offer. And you can say 'Non'.

The other 'issue' just makes me shake my head in virtual disbelief; the opening goes directly into a connie, and this clearly does not 'conform'. Well duh. This is sorted - by the buyer if they want to - by fitting doors. But if they decide that the energy loss is worth the 'open plan' look, then they won't bother. That's their call.

For a seller to be expected to make good this 'deficiency' in anticipation of a concern is nuts, imo. UNLESS, of course, they 'have' to, to enable the sale to proceed (ie, you are desperate not to lose a sale/purchase).

You are not.

What's the worst that could happen if the buyer pulls out? Seemingly a delay while another buyer is found, coupled with a quite-possible extra few £k in your pocket since it seems these folk bagged a bargain. (Ok, the worst could be that the same issue comes up again... Or, the market collapses!)

Your offer of an indemnity - for what they're worth... - is more than fair.

The issue with getting retrospective building regs is that in normal circumstances it can take 8 weeks, but in the current climate it could take much longer. I have read of one instance where it took someone 4 years because the inspector kept changing his mind. My solicitor also said that once you start the building regs process you can't then get an indemnity policy if the buyers pull out because it's taking too long. Should the buyers choose to pull out, we will reconsider before putting the house back up for sale but at the same time will continue to seek guidance from our solicitor.

When the buyers came round to do another viewing last week, we had the chance to meet them (as they'd previously viewed with the estate agents), and it definitely came across that one of the big selling points was the kitchen/conservatory being open plan which is why I don't think the buyers themselves have an issue and it's all coming from the buyers solicitor and/or mortgage lender.

Should the worst happen and the buyers pull out, as you say, we have a bit of delay, we will likely try and find another buyer with the house as it is, possibly at a higher offer due to prices going up in the area since we first listed the house, and if it's an issue a second time round then look at getting building regs in our own time without added pressure from an unrealistic solicitor.

delirious

Section62 said:

With regard to the garage conversion, are you sure planning consent wasn't required?  How did you verify this?

According to our councils website, Garage Conversions are under permitted development unless you increase the square footage of the building, so planning permission is not needed. 

Doozergirl

If you use an 'approved inspector', you can have it sorted in a matter of days.  

I'm not actually convinced that local
authority would take that long, but an approved inspector definitely wouldn't.  

Section62

delirious said:

Section62 said:

With regard to the garage conversion, are you sure planning consent wasn't required?  How did you verify this?

According to our councils website, Garage Conversions are under permitted development unless you increase the square footage of the building, so planning permission is not needed. 

Ok, so the buyer/lender could be concerned because PD rights don't always apply, and because planning conditions will usually override PD. The council's website is taking an overly simplistic approach (not unusual).

To be sure planning consent isn't required the conversion has to fit within the PD definition, and PD rights have to be extant, and there are no conditions which preclude conversion. (listed buildings and conservation areas also put a spanner in the works)

That should be relatively easy for the buyer's solicitor to confirm though.

delirious

UPDATE

I have just spoken to the estate agents as they have spoken to the buyers. The buyers are being advised by their solicitor to push for the building regs certificate as it will affect the resale of the house should they wish to sell in the future. The buyers (and the estate agents which doesn't help) are under the impression that it's a quick and simple process of an inspector coming round, looking at the wall and issuing a certificate.

I explained that my understanding is that with it being the original back wall of the house, it will be an invasive inspection involving removing the plaster where the steel work is, checking the brick work supporting the ends of the steel work, and that will then need replastering, re decorating and will involve quite a bit of money and will not necessarily be a quick process. 

The buyer wouldn't commit to pulling out but I'm just at a loss for what to do now.

Fly_Guy

As far as I see it you hold all the cards. Call their bluff and tell them this isn’t something you will do. 

One approach is to consider your best alternative to a negotiated agreement or BATNA. Which could well involve you getting an even better price for your home and (hopefully) a smoother selling process.

Section62

Fly_Guy said:

As far as I see it you hold all the cards.

The OP has a property on which extensive structural alterations have been carried out without BR approval or sign off. There's also a query over planning consent for the garage conversion.

The OP has several options, including remarketing the property and hoping for a less fussy buyer next time.

But that's a long, long way from "hold[ing] all the cards" though.

The existing buyer has already made an investment in the property - as things stand, finding a way to meet them part-way could represent the best overall outcome.  The alternatives include not finding anyone else willing/able to take on the risk, and/or going with another buyer who gets spooked as soon as they get the same advice the current one has.

Calling someone's bluff shouldn't be done lightly with six-figure bets.

Section62

delirious said:

I explained that my understanding is that with it being the original back wall of the house, it will be an invasive inspection involving removing the plaster where the steel work is, checking the brick work supporting the ends of the steel work, and that will then need replastering, re decorating and will involve quite a bit of money and will not necessarily be a quick process. 

Break the situation down into parts.

Exposing the steelwork doesn't take long, and quicker if you can DIY it.

The inspection is quick, once you've got an inspector with availability.

Making good takes longer, but isn't necessarily on the 'critical path' to completion.


Agreeing who pays for what will be the hard part, but one option to meet the buyer part way would be suggesting that the responsibility for making good will be theirs to do after completion. You'll be stuffed if the buyers pull out after the inspection, but if not you'll be transferring the cost of making good to them, and removing that part of the work as a source of delay to this transaction.

If that doesn't work, then as you suggested in an earlier post, you aren't in a tearing hurry to sell. So get the making good done along with replacement doors, then remarket at the higher value you anticipate, and with a property free from BR irregularities.

If you are a gambling person and considering the 'call their bluff' advice, then why not consider a gamble on a higher sale price possibly leaving you up after deducting the cost of the works?