Planning permission advice needed

fandyman

Doozergirl said:

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

I've also contacted an insurance broker and was told they will not be able to insure the house if it does not have the build regs for the steel beam works.

He said I might find another insurance company that would cover that (might be difficult) until the build regs approval is in place.

Sorry, but this sounds like nonsense - though it is quite a common urban myth. I've never seen a buildings insurance proposal form which asks questions along these lines. And a huge proportion of properties lack (provable) building regs approval for past works.

Bear in mind though that buildings insurance won't help you if there is a problem - if the place falls down because of shoddy workmanship etc, that isn't an insured risk.

I wanted to bump this comment because it is pertinent, I agree with it and the OP appears not to have seen it as they talk again about insurance in a later post. 

OP, the entire house almost certainly pre-dates modern building regulations.  A lack of certificates cannot be an issue for insurers or virtually none of us will be insured. 

It isn't a question that they ask.  If you start raising it, you will be met with answers from people that aren't properly qualified to answer.  Do not raise it. 

I've been in touch with my solicitors (who are acting for myself as well as for the lender) and they advised I need to inform the building insurer about the ongoing regularisation process. This is not that I can avoid mentioning it when obtaining the building insurance for the exchange of contracts.

I do not think there are many transactions that have BC regularisation process ongoing hence it is not that common. Buyers either take the indemnity insurance or do the regularisation after the transaction is completed themselves.

I agree the house pre-dates modern building regs (was built in the sixties).

Thing is the fact they probably do not ask whether I had any unauthorised structural changes to the house does not matter. Looks like I have to tell them about any unauthorised structural without proper building control approval according to my solicitors.

The same goes with the lender which the solicitors have already contacted and mentioned about the ongoing retrospective approval/regularisation process. The lender is now doing their checks to decide whether the mortgage still stands.

Hope that explains.

user1977

fandyman said:

Doozergirl said:

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

I've also contacted an insurance broker and was told they will not be able to insure the house if it does not have the build regs for the steel beam works.

He said I might find another insurance company that would cover that (might be difficult) until the build regs approval is in place.

Sorry, but this sounds like nonsense - though it is quite a common urban myth. I've never seen a buildings insurance proposal form which asks questions along these lines. And a huge proportion of properties lack (provable) building regs approval for past works.

Bear in mind though that buildings insurance won't help you if there is a problem - if the place falls down because of shoddy workmanship etc, that isn't an insured risk.

I wanted to bump this comment because it is pertinent, I agree with it and the OP appears not to have seen it as they talk again about insurance in a later post. 

OP, the entire house almost certainly pre-dates modern building regulations.  A lack of certificates cannot be an issue for insurers or virtually none of us will be insured. 

It isn't a question that they ask.  If you start raising it, you will be met with answers from people that aren't properly qualified to answer.  Do not raise it. 

Thing is it (have you had any unauthorised structural changes to the house) does not matter if it is a question they ask. 

On what legal basis do you think you have to tell them about things they don't ask? Although there used to be a principle that you had to disclose material points to insurers even if they hadn't asked, that no longer applies to consumer products (and it's doubtful whether it's relevant anyway - like I said, they're not covering you for structural failure etc).

fandyman

I think my solicitor (who is acting for the lender) will call the insurance company up and verify this is mentioned to protect the lender, no?

user1977

fandyman said:

I think my solicitor (who is acting for the lender) will call the insurance company up and verify this is mentioned to protect the lender, no?

There's no reason why anybody should be doing this on your behalf (I doubt the insurer will discuss the matter with your solicitor anyway) or why it would protect the lender - it isn't something which is necessary in order for valid buildings insurance to be in force. The solicitor will not normally look beyond checking that there is buildings insurance in force.

fandyman

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

I think my solicitor (who is acting for the lender) will call the insurance company up and verify this is mentioned to protect the lender, no?

There's no reason why anybody should be doing this on your behalf (I doubt the insurer will discuss the matter with your solicitor anyway) or why it would protect the lender - it isn't something which is necessary in order for valid buildings insurance to be in force. The solicitor will not normally look beyond checking that there is buildings insurance in force.

In that case I do not understand why my solicitors are explicitly asking me to look for insurance company that can insure the building knowing the ongoing regularisation process.

Surely they solicitors would have not told me that if it was not important for exchange? Shall I question my solicitors now?

user1977

fandyman said:

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

I think my solicitor (who is acting for the lender) will call the insurance company up and verify this is mentioned to protect the lender, no?

There's no reason why anybody should be doing this on your behalf (I doubt the insurer will discuss the matter with your solicitor anyway) or why it would protect the lender - it isn't something which is necessary in order for valid buildings insurance to be in force. The solicitor will not normally look beyond checking that there is buildings insurance in force.

In that case I do not understand why my solicitors are explicitly asking me to look for insurance company that can insure the building knowing the ongoing regularisation process.

Surely they solicitors would have not told me that if it was not important for exchange? Shall I question my solicitors now?

Has your solicitor said they actually want to get involved in this, or were they merely giving you some advice and letting you get on with sourcing the buildings insurance?

As others have said though, this is a bit of a sideshow when you also need to sort out the regularisation/indemnity insurance points anyway.

fandyman

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

I think my solicitor (who is acting for the lender) will call the insurance company up and verify this is mentioned to protect the lender, no?

There's no reason why anybody should be doing this on your behalf (I doubt the insurer will discuss the matter with your solicitor anyway) or why it would protect the lender - it isn't something which is necessary in order for valid buildings insurance to be in force. The solicitor will not normally look beyond checking that there is buildings insurance in force.

In that case I do not understand why my solicitors are explicitly asking me to look for insurance company that can insure the building knowing the ongoing regularisation process.

Surely they solicitors would have not told me that if it was not important for exchange? Shall I question my solicitors now?

Has your solicitor said they actually want to get involved in this, or were they merely giving you some advice and letting you get on with sourcing the buildings insurance?

As others have said though, this is a bit of a sideshow when you also need to sort out the regularisation/indemnity insurance points anyway.

The solicitors asked whether I have been able to obtain confirmation from my building insurance company that they will give full cover (on exchange of contracts) in spite of the fact of the pending retrospective building regulations consents application.

Not sure actually this constitutes telling the insurers about the ongoing regularisation process. They highlighted that unless I am able to fully insure the building exchange can not take place

I agree this is a sideshow as they are awaiting the lender to reissue the mortgage. To be honest it seems unlikely the lender will reissue the mortgage offer unless the regularisation is finished and BC approved the works.

Doozergirl

fandyman said:

Doozergirl said:

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

I've also contacted an insurance broker and was told they will not be able to insure the house if it does not have the build regs for the steel beam works.

He said I might find another insurance company that would cover that (might be difficult) until the build regs approval is in place.

Sorry, but this sounds like nonsense - though it is quite a common urban myth. I've never seen a buildings insurance proposal form which asks questions along these lines. And a huge proportion of properties lack (provable) building regs approval for past works.

Bear in mind though that buildings insurance won't help you if there is a problem - if the place falls down because of shoddy workmanship etc, that isn't an insured risk.

I wanted to bump this comment because it is pertinent, I agree with it and the OP appears not to have seen it as they talk again about insurance in a later post. 

OP, the entire house almost certainly pre-dates modern building regulations.  A lack of certificates cannot be an issue for insurers or virtually none of us will be insured. 

It isn't a question that they ask.  If you start raising it, you will be met with answers from people that aren't properly qualified to answer.  Do not raise it. 

I've been in touch with my solicitors (who are acting for myself as well as for the lender) and they advised I need to inform the building insurer about the ongoing regularisation process. This is not that I can avoid mentioning it when obtaining the building insurance for the exchange of contracts.

I do not think there are many transactions that have BC regularisation process ongoing hence it is not that common. Buyers either take the indemnity insurance or do the regularisation after the transaction is completed themselves.

I agree the house pre-dates modern building regs (was built in the sixties).

Thing is the fact they probably do not ask whether I had any unauthorised structural changes to the house does not matter. Looks like I have to tell them about any unauthorised structural without proper building control approval according to my solicitors.

The same goes with the lender which the solicitors have already contacted and mentioned about the ongoing retrospective approval/regularisation process. The lender is now doing their checks to decide whether the mortgage still stands.

Hope that explains.

It doesn't explain.  Your solicitor isn't an insurance underwriter either.  Their only interest is protecting their own backside regardless of what it costs you.  

Over two decades of fixing houses and I've barely seen one that doesn't have 'unauthorised' work. Houses are far worse behind the plaster than you can even imagine.   Almost all of them.  

The regularisation process doesn't
mean anything other than it will be signed off, unlike most other houses and the entirety of the rest of yours.  Barely anything in your house will meet today's standards, it doesn't mean it isn't good enough to insure.    

It impacts on indemnity insurance, certainly.   Not on household insurance.  Tell them what is going on and they will decide on the worst and you will shoot yourself in the foot by creating a massive problem where there wasn't one.  

Victorian houses don't even have foundations, let alone sign off. 

Leave well alone.  You already think it is fine and it definitely will be, so why actively seek to tell them otherwise? 

user1977

fandyman said:

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

I think my solicitor (who is acting for the lender) will call the insurance company up and verify this is mentioned to protect the lender, no?

There's no reason why anybody should be doing this on your behalf (I doubt the insurer will discuss the matter with your solicitor anyway) or why it would protect the lender - it isn't something which is necessary in order for valid buildings insurance to be in force. The solicitor will not normally look beyond checking that there is buildings insurance in force.

In that case I do not understand why my solicitors are explicitly asking me to look for insurance company that can insure the building knowing the ongoing regularisation process.

Surely they solicitors would have not told me that if it was not important for exchange? Shall I question my solicitors now?

Has your solicitor said they actually want to get involved in this, or were they merely giving you some advice and letting you get on with sourcing the buildings insurance?

As others have said though, this is a bit of a sideshow when you also need to sort out the regularisation/indemnity insurance points anyway.

The solicitors asked whether I have been able to obtain confirmation from my building insurance company that they will give full cover (on exchange of contracts) in spite of the fact of the pending retrospective building regulations consents application.

"The insurers have not raised any concerns with me about the pending retrospective building regulations consents application"

fandyman

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

I think my solicitor (who is acting for the lender) will call the insurance company up and verify this is mentioned to protect the lender, no?

There's no reason why anybody should be doing this on your behalf (I doubt the insurer will discuss the matter with your solicitor anyway) or why it would protect the lender - it isn't something which is necessary in order for valid buildings insurance to be in force. The solicitor will not normally look beyond checking that there is buildings insurance in force.

In that case I do not understand why my solicitors are explicitly asking me to look for insurance company that can insure the building knowing the ongoing regularisation process.

Surely they solicitors would have not told me that if it was not important for exchange? Shall I question my solicitors now?

Has your solicitor said they actually want to get involved in this, or were they merely giving you some advice and letting you get on with sourcing the buildings insurance?

As others have said though, this is a bit of a sideshow when you also need to sort out the regularisation/indemnity insurance points anyway.

The solicitors asked whether I have been able to obtain confirmation from my building insurance company that they will give full cover (on exchange of contracts) in spite of the fact of the pending retrospective building regulations consents application.

"The insurers have not raised any concerns with me about the pending retrospective building regulations consents application"

Do you think I can continue with standard online building insurance quotes and subsequent policy while not mentioning the retrospective building consents approval to the insurers thus hoping that the solicitors do not mention that to them?