Regularisation Certificate

alsweeney1985

I received responses to some enquiries yesterday that I am hoping someone can give me some advice.

The vendor has knocked down an extension and rebuilt it, taking out a wall to open it up into the rebuilt extension. This has been rebuilt in the past two years.

The vendor believes they would not have needed any building regulations as the extension was originally there, and that it just needed rebuilding so no planning permission was needed.

Speaking with my current landlord who is a builder they say that building regulations should have been applied for, can anyone confirm this is correct?

My solicitor has given me two options:

1. Ask the seller to provide a Building Regulation Indemnity policy which was cover me should the local authority ever enforce any action, this would not cover me for any defects/structural issued with the extension and removal of the wall.
2. Ask the seller to apply for a regularisation certificate to submit their application retrospectively for unauthorised work controllable under the Building Regulations.

Has anyone either a seller of a buyer ever had any experience of either of these scenarios?

I am conscious that the lender may well not offer the mortgage, or only with the indemnity policy in place. If the application for a regularised certificate is made what kind of timescales realistically would I be looking at and to what extent would the seller have to look behind walls etc?

My Home Buyer Survey is booked in for this Thursday, so I am thinking I need to be telling them about the lack of building regulations before they conduct their survey?

Really appreciate any advice anyone can give.

theartfullodger

In my experience telling surveyor about issues just results in a standard paragraph stating why they can't comment.  

But yes, as if you didn't disclose and there was later a problem you might be in the Johnson ...

alsweeney1985

theartfullodger said:

In my experience telling surveyor about issues just results in a standard paragraph stating why they can't comment.  

But yes, as if you didn't disclose and there was later a problem you might be in the Johnson ...

Do you think it might be worth going for a full survey instead of a Home Buyer survey in my situation?

eddddy

Getting a regularisation certificate might be difficult - or even effectively impossible.


For example,

• Building regulations require the foundations to be dug to a particular depth.  So getting regularisation might involve digging holes around the extension to see how deep the foundations are.

• If that's done, and the foundations are not deep enough, it might be possible to underpin the extension to meet building regs (which would be a major job), or it might be that the extension has to be demolished and rebuilt with deeper foundations.

• Building regulations also require the joist over the opening to be strong enough, and having suitable support points. So regularisation might involve hacking off lots of plaster to see what size the joist is and how it's supported. And then getting a  structural engineer to confirm that it's strong enough.

• If it's not strong enough, and needs to be replaced, that's also a major job.

I doubt that the seller will agree to doing all that stuff and more.  Realistically, the best plan might be to get a surveyor or structural engineer to look at the extension, and give you their opinion - and if you're hapy with their opinion, go with Indemnity Insurance.

Or if you're not happy with that, walk away.

user1977

Do you know exactly when "in the past two years" the work was completed? (and can the vendor evidence that?)

Indemnity insurance requires a minimum period to elapse before they'll cover it - usually at least one year, maybe longer.

alsweeney1985

user1977 said:

Do you know exactly when "in the past two years" the work was completed? (and can the vendor evidence that?)

Indemnity insurance requires a minimum period to elapse before they'll cover it - usually at least one year, maybe longer.

I’m not but I will find out, thanks for that piece of info.

GDB2222

What an indemnity policy does not do is ensure the work done is safe. 

These are major structural works, and you have to ask why the vendors didn’t want BC checking? Do you really, really believe that they were so ignorant about the requirement? Or, did they cut corners?

I would not go near the place.

eddddy

alsweeney1985 said:

Do you think it might be worth going for a full survey instead of a Home Buyer survey in my situation?

I would probably take a different approach. I would contact a surveyor and/or a structural engineer and explain the issue, and ask them to look specifically at the extension and give you their opinion. (Maybe speak to a few, and get a few quotes first)

user1977

Bear in mind though that, like regularisation, surveyors are only going to be able to tell you about what is visible, without getting permission to make holes etc. And unlike older works, there's no element of reassurance from "well, it was done 20 years ago and there aren't any cracks yet".

lincroft1710

alsweeney1985 said:

The vendor has knocked down an extension and rebuilt it, taking out a wall to open it up into the rebuilt extension. This has been rebuilt in the past two years.

The vendor believes they would not have needed any building regulations as the extension was originally there, and that it just needed rebuilding so no planning permission was needed.


Really appreciate any advice anyone can give.

Well the vendor believed wrongly.


Forget about indemnity policies, unless the vendor can show that the proper size and type of lintel was used when removing the wall (builder's merchant's invoice?) then forget about the house. The vendor will have to do something as every savvy prospective purchaser (or their solicitor) will be asking the same question

Section62

GDB2222 said:

What an indemnity policy does not do is ensure the work done is safe. 

These are major structural works, and you have to ask why the vendors didn’t want BC checking? Do you really, really believe that they were so ignorant about the requirement? Or, did they cut corners?

I would not go near the place.

This^

If a vendor is so clueless about the need to follow BR and planning processes (which they are clearly aware of) there can be no confidence they know anything about the technical requirements of the regs and ensured they were followed.

The two options really should be regularisation, or walk.