Buying a house with no building regs for extension

Section62

Denarii said:

When we bought a house where alterations had been completed but without building regs, etc. we had an indemnity policy issued but it was paid for by the vendor. There was no fuss, just a policy put in place.It covers us for any failings (house falls down..)  relating to the undocumented alterations.

Are you sure about that?  Indemnity policies normally cover things like enforcement action. Structural failure of the house is more in the territory of buildings insurance.

I'd be surprised if any insurer would issue an indemnity policy covering structural failure of the whole house (including third-party liabilities) without having some level of structural survey carried out first, and if it were available the policy would cost considerably more than the typical indemnity policy.

Denarii

Section62 said:

Denarii said:

When we bought a house where alterations had been completed but without building regs, etc. we had an indemnity policy issued but it was paid for by the vendor. There was no fuss, just a policy put in place.It covers us for any failings (house falls down..)  relating to the undocumented alterations.

Are you sure about that?  Indemnity policies normally cover things like enforcement action. Structural failure of the house is more in the territory of buildings insurance.

I'd be surprised if any insurer would issue an indemnity policy covering structural failure of the whole house (including third-party liabilities) without having some level of structural survey carried out first, and if it were available the policy would cost considerably more than the typical indemnity policy.

The policy states:

"....the Underwriters will indemnify the Insured up to the Limit of Indemnity in respect of any loss damages costs and expenses which the Insured may sustain suffer or incur during the Period of Insurance being directly attributable to the Lack of valid Building Regulation Consent in respect of any works carried out upon the Property...."

The policy writers appear to dislike punctuation but, unless this wording is completely disingenuous, it conveys to me that any losses arising from the undocumented work are covered - up to the limit of indemnity which, on this policy, equates to the purchase price of the property.

One of the conditions is that no structural issue has been identified prior to commencement of the policy - rather like most insurers are not willing to score an own goal by insuring already identified issues.

user1977

Denarii said:

Section62 said:

Denarii said:

When we bought a house where alterations had been completed but without building regs, etc. we had an indemnity policy issued but it was paid for by the vendor. There was no fuss, just a policy put in place.It covers us for any failings (house falls down..)  relating to the undocumented alterations.

Are you sure about that?  Indemnity policies normally cover things like enforcement action. Structural failure of the house is more in the territory of buildings insurance.

I'd be surprised if any insurer would issue an indemnity policy covering structural failure of the whole house (including third-party liabilities) without having some level of structural survey carried out first, and if it were available the policy would cost considerably more than the typical indemnity policy.

The policy states:

"....the Underwriters will indemnify the Insured up to the Limit of Indemnity in respect of any loss damages costs and expenses which the Insured may sustain suffer or incur during the Period of Insurance being directly attributable to the Lack of valid Building Regulation Consent in respect of any works carried out upon the Property...."

The policy writers appear to dislike punctuation but, unless this wording is completely disingenuous, it conveys to me that any losses arising from the undocumented work are covered - up to the limit of indemnity which, on this policy, equates to the purchase price of the property.

It's losses arising from the lack of the consent, not from poor quality work. So if the council require the unauthorised works to be removed, the insurance will cover it. If it simply falls down, that isn't covered.

Not sure why you resurrected this old thread from last October!

Denarii

user1977 said:

Denarii said:

Section62 said:

Denarii said:

When we bought a house where alterations had been completed but without building regs, etc. we had an indemnity policy issued but it was paid for by the vendor. There was no fuss, just a policy put in place.It covers us for any failings (house falls down..)  relating to the undocumented alterations.

Are you sure about that?  Indemnity policies normally cover things like enforcement action. Structural failure of the house is more in the territory of buildings insurance.

I'd be surprised if any insurer would issue an indemnity policy covering structural failure of the whole house (including third-party liabilities) without having some level of structural survey carried out first, and if it were available the policy would cost considerably more than the typical indemnity policy.

The policy states:

"....the Underwriters will indemnify the Insured up to the Limit of Indemnity in respect of any loss damages costs and expenses which the Insured may sustain suffer or incur during the Period of Insurance being directly attributable to the Lack of valid Building Regulation Consent in respect of any works carried out upon the Property...."

The policy writers appear to dislike punctuation but, unless this wording is completely disingenuous, it conveys to me that any losses arising from the undocumented work are covered - up to the limit of indemnity which, on this policy, equates to the purchase price of the property.

It's losses arising from the lack of the consent, not from poor quality work. So if the council require the unauthorised works to be removed, the insurance will cover it. If it simply falls down, that isn't covered.

Not sure why you resurrected this old thread from last October!

Not sure why it bothers you

user1977

Denarii said:

user1977 said:

Denarii said:

Section62 said:

Denarii said:

When we bought a house where alterations had been completed but without building regs, etc. we had an indemnity policy issued but it was paid for by the vendor. There was no fuss, just a policy put in place.It covers us for any failings (house falls down..)  relating to the undocumented alterations.

Are you sure about that?  Indemnity policies normally cover things like enforcement action. Structural failure of the house is more in the territory of buildings insurance.

I'd be surprised if any insurer would issue an indemnity policy covering structural failure of the whole house (including third-party liabilities) without having some level of structural survey carried out first, and if it were available the policy would cost considerably more than the typical indemnity policy.

The policy states:

"....the Underwriters will indemnify the Insured up to the Limit of Indemnity in respect of any loss damages costs and expenses which the Insured may sustain suffer or incur during the Period of Insurance being directly attributable to the Lack of valid Building Regulation Consent in respect of any works carried out upon the Property...."

The policy writers appear to dislike punctuation but, unless this wording is completely disingenuous, it conveys to me that any losses arising from the undocumented work are covered - up to the limit of indemnity which, on this policy, equates to the purchase price of the property.

It's losses arising from the lack of the consent, not from poor quality work. So if the council require the unauthorised works to be removed, the insurance will cover it. If it simply falls down, that isn't covered.

Not sure why you resurrected this old thread from last October!

Not sure why it bothers you

It tends to cause confusion because people miss the fact that it's an old thread, and start answering the original post again.

Section62

Denarii said:

Section62 said:

Denarii said:

When we bought a house where alterations had been completed but without building regs, etc. we had an indemnity policy issued but it was paid for by the vendor. There was no fuss, just a policy put in place.It covers us for any failings (house falls down..)  relating to the undocumented alterations.

Are you sure about that?  Indemnity policies normally cover things like enforcement action. Structural failure of the house is more in the territory of buildings insurance.

I'd be surprised if any insurer would issue an indemnity policy covering structural failure of the whole house (including third-party liabilities) without having some level of structural survey carried out first, and if it were available the policy would cost considerably more than the typical indemnity policy.

The policy states:

"....the Underwriters will indemnify the Insured up to the Limit of Indemnity in respect of any loss damages costs and expenses which the Insured may sustain suffer or incur during the Period of Insurance being directly attributable to the Lack of valid Building Regulation Consent in respect of any works carried out upon the Property...."

The policy writers appear to dislike punctuation but, unless this wording is completely disingenuous, it conveys to me that any losses arising from the undocumented work are covered - up to the limit of indemnity which, on this policy, equates to the purchase price of the property.

In addition to user1977's point about " the Lack of valid Building Regulation Consent", the words "directly attributable" also give the insurer huge scope for wriggling out of a claim.  I would very much doubt a successful claim could ever be made for the full purchase price of the property, even if LABC required the buildings to be demolished entirely.

Denarii said:

One of the conditions is that no structural issue has been identified prior to commencement of the policy - rather like most insurers are not willing to score an own goal by insuring already identified issues.

This is why it is unlikely the policy will do what you hoped it will.  A structural failure is likely to be attributed to defective work, and not "directly attributable" to the lack of BR consent.  The insurer wouldn't likely take on structural risk without at least a basic structural assessment.