No completion certificate for extension

ChilliBob

macman said:

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.

I believe they used to be in the trade so to speak, so yeah, some of what you say is highly likely.

I think your last part is the critical one, there's basically no way to confirm it's sound, it's just guesswork. The only way would be if BC hadsde multiple repeat visits to check but simply, for some bizzare resson were not called in for a final check.. 
In this case the seller may be willing to retro certify, as it'll likely be that bc would do it without tearing down the place. 

Doozergirl

We're still forgetting the quality of the existing house.  I think everyone needs the most invasive survey possible because there is no such thing as the perfect house.  I've been behind the walls of nearly every age of house and they're all shocking and it's the older elements of houses that are the most shocking.  That's where you find the dodgy electrics and terrible bodges.

I'm playing devil's advocate to a certain degree here, but based on experience there's part of me that would, on balance, prefer most things built in 2008 to anything built even 10 years before that. 
 

The windows don't need a separate certificate if they are part of the extension.  They would be part of it. 

ChilliBob

You do make an interesting point, but with the vast majority of houses near me being well over 100 years old, you'd never buy anything if you wanted to be 100% sure on the existing/original build.

I guess with extensions which are more recent, you can get this comfort, and, even if we were willing to overlook this, what about when we go to sell? Would quite a few people swerve the property because of it? -

One posted has said having such a large extension not signed off would make him/her nervous - clearly that's just one person, but it does raise questions about resale.

Anyhow, still waiting to hear from agent, so will see whats happening later I guess

user1977

Bear in mind that by the time you come to sell, it will be an even more historic issue.

macman

OP, I'd get your own builder to take a look if you are concerned. They're as likely to pick up anything dodgy from a visual inspection as a surveyor will, and, if your're contemplating doing work anyway, it may cost you next to nothing.

ChilliBob

user1977 said:

Bear in mind that by the time you come to sell, it will be an even more historic issue.

Yeah, our solicitor said the same, if it was say 15-20 years perhaps the buyer wouldn't be too concerned, 5 years and perhaps so. 

ChilliBob

macman said:

OP, I'd get your own builder to take a look if you are concerned. They're as likely to pick up anything dodgy from a visual inspection as a surveyor will, and, if your're contemplating doing work anyway, it may cost you next to nothing.

We don't have, or are looking right away to do any billing work, I just didn't want to shoot myself in the foot in the future. But yeah I can see where you are coming from. 

If the extension was say 10 cm bigger than is allowed or something, and a new neighbour moves in and gets the hump, presumably they could complain thinking its too big, that would get the council to come and check.. We'd end up having to knock it down!.. From what I know the indemnity insurance would cover a fine, not building costs? 

user1977

ChilliBob said:

macman said:

OP, I'd get your own builder to take a look if you are concerned. They're as likely to pick up anything dodgy from a visual inspection as a surveyor will, and, if your're contemplating doing work anyway, it may cost you next to nothing.

From what I know the indemnity insurance would cover a fine, not building costs? 

I don't think a "fine" is even possible, it's enforcement action to rectify (or remove) the works. The insurance will cover whatever the insurers find is the cheapest way of resolving the problem, up to the full value of the house - so if the worst case scenario is demolishing the whole extension and having a devalued house, then in theory that would be covered.

Doozergirl

ChilliBob said:

macman said:

OP, I'd get your own builder to take a look if you are concerned. They're as likely to pick up anything dodgy from a visual inspection as a surveyor will, and, if your're contemplating doing work anyway, it may cost you next to nothing.

We don't have, or are looking right away to do any billing work, I just didn't want to shoot myself in the foot in the future. But yeah I can see where you are coming from. 

If the extension was say 10 cm bigger than is allowed or something, and a new neighbour moves in and gets the hump, presumably they could complain thinking its too big, that would get the council to come and check.. We'd end up having to knock it down!.. From what I know the indemnity insurance would cover a fine, not building costs? 

That isn't remotely true! 

Firstly, anything older than 4 years becomes lawful development.  The extension is going nowhere.  
 

Secondly, even if it were less than 4 years old you would have the opportunity to apply for planning permission for what is there.  

ChilliBob

Interesting, thanks both, I'm finding conflicting advice when I try to read up about it, for exsmple:

However, it is important to note that indemnity insurance will not over the cost to repair or replace something. For example, if there was a policy in place because you didn’t have the installation certificate for a boiler it wouldn’t cover repair or replacement of the boiler. For this reason, it is always important when you are buying to have the property surveyed and installations checked by a competent contractor.

Taken from here: https://hoa.org.uk/advice/guides-for-homeowners/i-am-buying/what-is-indemnity-insurance/

So you guys seem to be suggesting that costs of rebuilding would be covered, if necessary, and due to some 4 year rule, are highly unlikely to come into play anyway.

Interesting. Very helpful. Thanks