No completion certificate for extension

macman

ChilliBob said:

macman said:

I meant to add that BC enforcement can only be carried out within 12 months of the building work, so that ship has sailed long ago.  But, since the vendor will be paying, I'd ask them for an indemnity policy anyway. 
No, they don't check 'other work'. They check the work that you've applied to have regularised, nothing more. The only exception would be if they noticed something that made the building structurally dangerous.

Ah okay. Yeah, it looks fine go the untrained eye, and I feel sure the surveyor would have highlighted any visible red flags too - he was a private guy we found not just something from the bank etc.

I'm m not sure how this 12 months side of things comes into it? What do you mean by enforcement? I thought it was still possible, despite being 13 years on, to have retro signoff? 

A building survey is a visual inspection only. If the foundations were a foot deep instead of 3 feet, or if the RSJ's were of an inadequate cross-section to carry the loads imposed by the roof and upper floor, then no surveyor can be liable for not noticing the defect, because it's not visible. The whole point of BC approval is to sign off work as structurally sound before it's covered up by the finishing work. There's no way to assess it's soundness now without dismantling part of it first, which the vendor will obviously not permit.
Enforcement means that the LA will serve notice on you to remedy the defects at your expense within a set time limit. After 12m, they cannot do that. The only point of getting retrospective sign-off 13 years after the work was done is to save you the same hassle from vendors when you come to sell it. 
You are fretting about the wrong things. The only risk you take is whether the work was structurally sound, not that it wasn't certified at the time. 

Doozergirl

ChilliBob said:

Doozergirl said:

ChilliBob said:

Right so I guess that means my worry about not being able to do additional work might not be an issue. But surely if you wanted ig signed off they'd check other work?

This is a bit of an aside though, as we have no plans yet to do work (we'll, its already been extended side and back). It's more the first post that's important I suppose 

Building Control don't.   Unless there's
something really glaringly obvious that you'd want to fix anyway, but seriously cannot ever recall a BCO looking at something existing and asking for it to be upgraded.  Sign off or not.  

Building Control and Planning are totally separate departments with different jobs.  

Cheers. 

So do you guys think this may be fairly common and isn't something to be overly concerned with, or is it a massive red flag? 

I think most sales go through with indemnity policies these days.  The key is your survey. 

If you have confidence in your surveyor, which it sounds like you do, and they think it's all safe, then building control are unlikely to spot  anything if you do future works.  

Enforcement after 12 months involves getting a court order.  You going for regularisation after 13 years means opening things up and then rectifying anything voluntarily in order to get the paperwork.  They won't force you to do anything as they're not going to go for expensive court orders for trivialities. 

A private building control inspector might be helpful though in all circumstances, whether it's regularisation or future works.  They're a lot happier to brainstorm and problem solve than local authorities.  

For me, it's about the perceived quality of the work rather than the paperwork.  Is there an application in the searches?  Sometimes final inspections get missed because there's small areas of non-compliance rather than people taking a gung-ho approach and whacking up a double storey extension with no care at all for the formalities. 

Bear in mind that the house itself probably had no sign off and half the houses in this country have very little in the way of foundations.    I do believe in doing things properly, but pulling out because you hold one part of the house to a paperwork standard whilst ignoring the rest of the house because it's too old isn't entirely logical. 

ChilliBob

macman said:

ChilliBob said:

macman said:

I meant to add that BC enforcement can only be carried out within 12 months of the building work, so that ship has sailed long ago.  But, since the vendor will be paying, I'd ask them for an indemnity policy anyway. 
No, they don't check 'other work'. They check the work that you've applied to have regularised, nothing more. The only exception would be if they noticed something that made the building structurally dangerous.

Ah okay. Yeah, it looks fine go the untrained eye, and I feel sure the surveyor would have highlighted any visible red flags too - he was a private guy we found not just something from the bank etc.

I'm m not sure how this 12 months side of things comes into it? What do you mean by enforcement? I thought it was still possible, despite being 13 years on, to have retro signoff? 

A building survey is a visual inspection only. If the foundations were a foot deep instead of 3 feet, or if the RSJ's were of an inadequate cross-section to carry the loads imposed by the roof and upper floor, then no surveyor can be liable for not noticing the defect, because it's not visible. The whole point of BC approval is to sign off work as structurally sound before it's covered up by the finishing work. There's no way to assess it's soundness now without dismantling part of it first, which the vendor will obviously not permit.
Enforcement means that the LA will serve notice on you to remedy the defects at your expense within a set time limit. After 12m, they cannot do that. The only point of getting retrospective sign-off 13 years after the work was done is to save you the same hassle from vendors when you come to sell it. 
You are fretting about the wrong things. The only risk you take is whether the work was structurally sound, not that it wasn't certified. at the time. 

I'd feel reasonably confident it's of sound quality because if it's been up for 13 years showing no bad signs it's probably okay, I admit that sounds a bit wishy washy!

If you knew to get planning permission, and told BC when you had started, it seems odd not go go the final hurdle. 

Gas boiler and windows have the same concerns regarding certificates too

You say I'm fretting sbout the wrong things, but the point is the only way I can know its of sound construction is if it *was* signed off.

It's for this reason I sacked off a nearly new loft conversion at a property 8 years ago. I had no idea if it was going to collapse on us in the bedroom below as we slept! 

ChilliBob

Doozergirl said:

ChilliBob said:

Doozergirl said:

ChilliBob said:

Right so I guess that means my worry about not being able to do additional work might not be an issue. But surely if you wanted ig signed off they'd check other work?

This is a bit of an aside though, as we have no plans yet to do work (we'll, its already been extended side and back). It's more the first post that's important I suppose 

Building Control don't.   Unless there's
something really glaringly obvious that you'd want to fix anyway, but seriously cannot ever recall a BCO looking at something existing and asking for it to be upgraded.  Sign off or not.  

Building Control and Planning are totally separate departments with different jobs.  

Cheers. 

So do you guys think this may be fairly common and isn't something to be overly concerned with, or is it a massive red flag? 

I think most sales go through with indemnity policies these days.  The key is your survey. 

If you have confidence in your surveyor, which it sounds like you do, and they think it's all safe, then building control are unlikely to spot  anything if you do future works.  

Enforcement after 12 months involves getting a court order.  You going for regularisation after 13 years means opening things up and then rectifying anything voluntarily in order to get the paperwork.  They won't force you to do anything as they're not going to go for expensive court orders for trivialities. 

A private building control inspector might be helpful though in all circumstances, whether it's regularisation or future works.  They're a lot happier to brainstorm and problem solve than local authorities.  

For me, it's about the perceived quality of the work rather than the paperwork.  Is there an application in the searches?  Sometimes final inspections get missed because there's small areas of non-compliance rather than people taking a gung-ho approach and whacking up a double storey extension with no care at all for the formalities. 

Bear in mind that the house itself probably had no sign off and half the houses in this country have very little in the way of foundations.    I do believe in doing things properly, but pulling out because you hold one part of the house to a paperwork standard whilst ignoring the rest of the house because it's too old isn't entirely logical. 

Thanks, some very interesting points there. I do still keep coming back to the point if someone knew it needed to be done, but didn't, is it because they're hiding something or know something would not pass? Otherwise why not do it? 

macman

ChilliBob said:

Doozergirl said:

ChilliBob said:

Doozergirl said:

ChilliBob said:

Right so I guess that means my worry about not being able to do additional work might not be an issue. But surely if you wanted ig signed off they'd check other work?

This is a bit of an aside though, as we have no plans yet to do work (we'll, its already been extended side and back). It's more the first post that's important I suppose 

Building Control don't.   Unless there's
something really glaringly obvious that you'd want to fix anyway, but seriously cannot ever recall a BCO looking at something existing and asking for it to be upgraded.  Sign off or not.  

Building Control and Planning are totally separate departments with different jobs.  

Cheers. 

So do you guys think this may be fairly common and isn't something to be overly concerned with, or is it a massive red flag? 

I think most sales go through with indemnity policies these days.  The key is your survey. 

If you have confidence in your surveyor, which it sounds like you do, and they think it's all safe, then building control are unlikely to spot  anything if you do future works.  

Enforcement after 12 months involves getting a court order.  You going for regularisation after 13 years means opening things up and then rectifying anything voluntarily in order to get the paperwork.  They won't force you to do anything as they're not going to go for expensive court orders for trivialities. 

A private building control inspector might be helpful though in all circumstances, whether it's regularisation or future works.  They're a lot happier to brainstorm and problem solve than local authorities.  

For me, it's about the perceived quality of the work rather than the paperwork.  Is there an application in the searches?  Sometimes final inspections get missed because there's small areas of non-compliance rather than people taking a gung-ho approach and whacking up a double storey extension with no care at all for the formalities. 

Bear in mind that the house itself probably had no sign off and half the houses in this country have very little in the way of foundations.    I do believe in doing things properly, but pulling out because you hold one part of the house to a paperwork standard whilst ignoring the rest of the house because it's too old isn't entirely logical. 

Thanks, some very interesting points there. I do still keep coming back to the point if someone knew it needed to be done, but didn't, is it because they're hiding something or know something would not pass? Otherwise why not do it? 

So ask them, and make your decision based on their reply. Assuming they commissioned the original work.
It's very often because a) they don't know it's needed, and b) their builder says it's not needed, or that they will arrange it for them. And doesn't, because it will delay the work. 

ChilliBob

Yeah, have asked so will wait and see the response. Such a pain, I thought exchange was a week or two away! 

macman

ChilliBob said:

macman said:

ChilliBob said:

macman said:

I meant to add that BC enforcement can only be carried out within 12 months of the building work, so that ship has sailed long ago.  But, since the vendor will be paying, I'd ask them for an indemnity policy anyway. 
No, they don't check 'other work'. They check the work that you've applied to have regularised, nothing more. The only exception would be if they noticed something that made the building structurally dangerous.

Ah okay. Yeah, it looks fine go the untrained eye, and I feel sure the surveyor would have highlighted any visible red flags too - he was a private guy we found not just something from the bank etc.

I'm m not sure how this 12 months side of things comes into it? What do you mean by enforcement? I thought it was still possible, despite being 13 years on, to have retro signoff? 

A building survey is a visual inspection only. If the foundations were a foot deep instead of 3 feet, or if the RSJ's were of an inadequate cross-section to carry the loads imposed by the roof and upper floor, then no surveyor can be liable for not noticing the defect, because it's not visible. The whole point of BC approval is to sign off work as structurally sound before it's covered up by the finishing work. There's no way to assess it's soundness now without dismantling part of it first, which the vendor will obviously not permit.
Enforcement means that the LA will serve notice on you to remedy the defects at your expense within a set time limit. After 12m, they cannot do that. The only point of getting retrospective sign-off 13 years after the work was done is to save you the same hassle from vendors when you come to sell it. 
You are fretting about the wrong things. The only risk you take is whether the work was structurally sound, not that it wasn't certified. at the time. 

I'd feel reasonably confident it's of sound quality because if it's been up for 13 years showing no bad signs it's probably okay, I admit that sounds a bit wishy washy!

If you knew to get planning permission, and told BC when you had started, it seems odd not go go the final hurdle. 

Gas boiler and windows have the same concerns regarding certificates too

You say I'm fretting sbout the wrong things, but the point is the only way I can know its of sound construction is if it *was* signed off.

It's for this reason I sacked off a nearly new loft conversion at a property 8 years ago. I had no idea if it was going to collapse on us in the bedroom below as we slept! 

That argument of course is entirely valid until such time as it falls down...could be 50 years on, could be next week.
If both the boiler and the windows are also uncertified then it does however indicate that they are in the habit of using dubious suppliers, maybe friends or family who work on a cash basis, without paperwork. And that it's not just a one-off oversight.
Nothing you can do before exchange can establish if it's 100% structurally sound: if that concerns you, then look elsewhere.

Doozergirl

ChilliBob said:

Doozergirl said:

ChilliBob said:

Doozergirl said:

ChilliBob said:

Right so I guess that means my worry about not being able to do additional work might not be an issue. But surely if you wanted ig signed off they'd check other work?

This is a bit of an aside though, as we have no plans yet to do work (we'll, its already been extended side and back). It's more the first post that's important I suppose 

Building Control don't.   Unless there's
something really glaringly obvious that you'd want to fix anyway, but seriously cannot ever recall a BCO looking at something existing and asking for it to be upgraded.  Sign off or not.  

Building Control and Planning are totally separate departments with different jobs.  

Cheers. 

So do you guys think this may be fairly common and isn't something to be overly concerned with, or is it a massive red flag? 

I think most sales go through with indemnity policies these days.  The key is your survey. 

If you have confidence in your surveyor, which it sounds like you do, and they think it's all safe, then building control are unlikely to spot  anything if you do future works.  

Enforcement after 12 months involves getting a court order.  You going for regularisation after 13 years means opening things up and then rectifying anything voluntarily in order to get the paperwork.  They won't force you to do anything as they're not going to go for expensive court orders for trivialities. 

A private building control inspector might be helpful though in all circumstances, whether it's regularisation or future works.  They're a lot happier to brainstorm and problem solve than local authorities.  

For me, it's about the perceived quality of the work rather than the paperwork.  Is there an application in the searches?  Sometimes final inspections get missed because there's small areas of non-compliance rather than people taking a gung-ho approach and whacking up a double storey extension with no care at all for the formalities. 

Bear in mind that the house itself probably had no sign off and half the houses in this country have very little in the way of foundations.    I do believe in doing things properly, but pulling out because you hold one part of the house to a paperwork standard whilst ignoring the rest of the house because it's too old isn't entirely logical. 

Thanks, some very interesting points there. I do still keep coming back to the point if someone knew it needed to be done, but didn't, is it because they're hiding something or know something would not pass? Otherwise why not do it? 

It could be something as simple as them not wanting to extract their hob outside.  Or they fall out with the builder and refuse to pay (this can be a customer's fault too!), so the builder holds the boiler certificate ransom.  The further you get in, the smaller the details might seem.  

As far as the boiler goes, a 13 year old
certificate is worth nothing.  The boiler should be inspected by you, but I would provide buyers with evidence of a recent service and a gas safety certificate anyway.  Most people won't but that is what you want for a currently safe boiler.  

Windows?  It would be incredibly unusual for the glass not to comply these days.  There's no benefit to anyone of it not.  Building control check it by looking at the markings on the glass.    

ChilliBob

Yeah I'm not too fussed about the windows tbh, the boiler can also be rectified with a check, but it's just more issues really on top of the main one. 

The sellers have done up a property before this one and intend to do the same on their next one, so, they know what they're are doing, which adds to the oddities. 

I'll see what replies I get, probably tomorrow, now. 

Thanks for the advice people 

macman

The real question is, if they are consistently skimping on this kind of thing, what else has been bodged up, that doesn't normally require certification? Has the house been rewired during their ownership, for example? By that guy who is a mate of the builder?