Seller... loft conversion with no building regs, how to resolve/proceed

lemons21

lemons21 said:

user1977 said:

If it's structurally sound I wouldn't be overly concerned about it. The rest of the flat isn't going to comply with current building regs either, but presumably she's not going to bring that up to standard either? It's beyond any timescale for enforcement action. You don't want to contact the council (except as a last resort) as that would preclude using indemnity insurance as a solution.

Are there any objective problems with it? e.g. steep stairs, rubbish fireproofing/insulation, etc? You haven't said quite what the "conversion" comprised if it's merely a "fancy storage area".

Thanks for your reply 

In terms of what it comprises of: stairs (steeper than standard but not horrendous and nothing on the steep stairs in my Victorian house), with a step at the top, no fire door, carpeted floor. The height of the area is a worry for us, hip roof, sloping downwards (but then again it is not considered a habitable room). 
However, she has in fact had work done on the existing conversion to make sure that it is structurally sound prior to sale. 
Prior to the structural engineer's inspection, a builder reinforced two structural elements (purlin reinforced) of the conversion and boarded these reinforcements up (as not boarded up would have presented a fire hazard). The builder who was contacted to complete the works was present for the structure engineer's inspection so that the SE could fully access everything he needed to with microscopic cameras etc for the report. 

I’ve just realised that I forgot to mention the following (foggy evening brain yesterday):

So the space looks like this:
Fixed staircase up to what would have been loft hatch (obviously widened), small step into the space. Boarded and carpeted loft area. It’s a hip roof so ceiling slopes downwards (doubt would ever meet meet required head height for regs), no fire door. They put a velux window in. It has a light and an electric socket as well. 

Area itself is totally empty, no furniture, not being used as a room.

There are two hatches either end of the space behind which are some areas which are partially boarded- with light items stored inside. 

warwick2001

DoozerGirl has already answered/solved your problem. Market it as a loft. Not as a bedroom. No building regs are needed for a posh loft.

Tell the EA its a loft. Not a bedroom. Sorted. Doesn't matter how you get into it/what's in there. Its a loft.

Section62

warwick2001 said:

DoozerGirl has already answered/solved your problem. Market it as a loft. Not as a bedroom. No building regs are needed for a posh loft.

Tell the EA its a loft. Not a bedroom. Sorted. Doesn't matter how you get into it/what's in there. Its a loft.

...with the exception of whether or not the lease* allows the use of the loft in this way, and whether the conversion work needed freeholder* consent.

(*or whatever)

lemons21

Section62 said:

lemons21 said:

The conversion was done approx 10 years ago and it appears that at the time of the works, the previous owners did not seek regs for the works.

Was freeholder consent  needed/obtained?  Does the freeholder(s) know about the conversion now?

Good question. Freehold is shared between this masionette and one below. The building is essentially a semi that was converted into two masionettes.

Solicitors (recent ones as a vendor that is) did not mention this as a requirement but did say that building regs should have been sought by the previous owners when they had this work done. 

lemons21

Section62 said:

lemons21 said:

Thrugelmir said:

lemons21 said:

along the lines of 'you understand that building regulations were not sought for the works so you must ensure that you are satisfied with the quality of the works'. There were no proper conversations or exchanges about the issue and the solicitors did not draw attention to it;

Seems very explicit. The solicitors never saw the property. Not they are experts. Onus is on the buyer to conduct their own due diligence. 

Appointing ones own surveyor isn't difficult. 

Thanks for the reply 

I appreciate what you are saying but what is done is done now sadly. My partner is already kicking herself about not paying enough attention to that mention of it in the long document at time of purchase. Was in a tough situation at the time. Lesson learnt for the future. 

I was really looking for advice about how to proceed in terms of the regs side of thing from anyone with experience. 

Have already appointed own structural engineer. Thanks anyway 

Thrugelmir's point was a really important one.  You placed a question mark on the competence of the solicitor and implied they hadn't acted in the interests of their client, who had "essentially been stitched up".

Issues like this come up on the forum regularly, and it is important that anyone in a similar situation finding this thread in the future understands the limitations on what conveyancing solicitors can be expected to do without the client asking questions and for additional investigations to be carried out.

It is almost certain that 'any claim for negligence of the solicitor is a no go' - but not because of some small-print get-out-of -jail clause, but instead because they have done what would be expected from a solicitor in that situation.

Your partner hasn't in any sense been 'stitched up' by the solicitor in this matter.

(this isn't intended as criticism of you or your partner, just a heads up to anyone who finds themselves in a similar position)

Thanks 😊 I do understand your point. Lesson learned for the future for sure. 

Doozergirl

lemons21 said:

Section62 said:

lemons21 said:

The conversion was done approx 10 years ago and it appears that at the time of the works, the previous owners did not seek regs for the works.

Was freeholder consent  needed/obtained?  Does the freeholder(s) know about the conversion now?

Good question. Freehold is shared between this masionette and one below. The building is essentially a semi that was converted into two masionettes.

Solicitors (recent ones as a vendor that is) did not mention this as a requirement but did say that building regs should have been sought by the previous owners when they had this work done. 

Solicitors don't get proper training in what does and does not need PP or BCA.  

They haven't been to the house and sometimes they need to be told.