House without planning consent and completion certificate

jonnydeppiwish!

Section62 said:'Standing' is not the only issue.  Insulation, prevention of ingress of water/moisture,condensation ('damp'), and fire safety are also very important - all could be defective in a building which is 'still standing' after 30 years.  These days 'damp' and poor quality insulation should be high on people's radar.

Really? They’re buying a house that had extension work done between 30 and 40 years ago. Of course the insulation won’t be up to today’s standard. Nor will the insulation in the main walls.

Damp, as many have explained on here for many years, is normally caused by ground level above the damp course and/or defection guttering.

Section62

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Section62 said:'Standing' is not the only issue.  Insulation, prevention of ingress of water/moisture,condensation ('damp'), and fire safety are also very important - all could be defective in a building which is 'still standing' after 30 years.  These days 'damp' and poor quality insulation should be high on people's radar.

Really? They’re buying a house that had extension work done between 30 and 40 years ago. Of course the insulation won’t be up to today’s standard. Nor will the insulation in the main walls.

Yes, really.

I wasn't suggesting the insulation would necessarily be up to today's standard.  The point was that the building could have been constructed defectively in comparison to 1987 standards.  Design philosphy in the 1980's was different to the approach adopted today, in particular in relation to ventilation and air tightness.  A building which was defective in 1987 would just be more defective today.  Being defective by 1987 standards could be a major problem.  The fact the building is 'still standing' doesn't alter that.

The main thing which seems to worry the average layperson is structural adequacy - as often illustrated by the "If it is still standing..." erroneous assumption.

However, if the building is defective in terms of insulation, prevention of ingress of water/moisture,condensation ('damp') etc, this can lead (for example) to rot in the roof structure leading to weakness and eventual failure.  So whilst the building may be 'still standing' today, the moisture induced rot could well change that (and possibly quite suddenly) after a period of (say) 35 years has elapsed.  Corrosion (or lack) of wall ties is another related example.

Damp, as many have explained on here for many years, is normally caused by ground level above the damp course and/or defection guttering.

Those are two potential causes of ingress of water/moisture, but by no means the only ones.

They are more common than others, primarily because the first is often caused by user action post-construction (e.g. building a flowerbed), or through lack of maintenance (e.g. not clearing leaves from gutters).

Other causes, e.g. mortar bridging of the cavity, are less common, precisely because we have building regulations, and over the years more control over the quality of building work.  Building work carried out in 1987 with no BC involvement, which was deffective according to 1987 standards, could well have problems with ingress of water/moisture,condensation ('damp') etc because the builder opted out of doing things properly.

That is the reason why people should be concerned about the lack of BR paperwork on a property which has clearly had significant work done to it.  The risk of BC enforcement action shouldn't be the concern.

jonnydeppiwish!

Section62 said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Section62 said:'Standing' is not the only issue.  Insulation, prevention of ingress of water/moisture,condensation ('damp'), and fire safety are also very important - all could be defective in a building which is 'still standing' after 30 years.  These days 'damp' and poor quality insulation should be high on people's radar.

Really? They’re buying a house that had extension work done between 30 and 40 years ago. Of course the insulation won’t be up to today’s standard. Nor will the insulation in the main walls.

Yes, really.

I wasn't suggesting the insulation would necessarily be up to today's standard.  The point was that the building could have been constructed defectively in comparison to 1987 standards.  Design philosphy in the 1980's was different to the approach adopted today, in particular in relation to ventilation and air tightness.  A building which was defective in 1987 would just be more defective today.  Being defective by 1987 standards could be a major problem.  The fact the building is 'still standing' doesn't alter that.

The main thing which seems to worry the average layperson is structural adequacy - as often illustrated by the "If it is still standing..." erroneous assumption.

However, if the building is defective in terms of insulation, prevention of ingress of water/moisture,condensation ('damp') etc, this can lead (for example) to rot in the roof structure leading to weakness and eventual failure.  So whilst the building may be 'still standing' today, the moisture induced rot could well change that (and possibly quite suddenly) after a period of (say) 35 years has elapsed.  Corrosion (or lack) of wall ties is another related example.

Damp, as many have explained on here for many years, is normally caused by ground level above the damp course and/or defection guttering.

Those are two potential causes of ingress of water/moisture, but by no means the only ones.

They are more common than others, primarily because the first is often caused by user action post-construction (e.g. building a flowerbed), or through lack of maintenance (e.g. not clearing leaves from gutters).

Other causes, e.g. mortar bridging of the cavity, are less common, precisely because we have building regulations, and over the years more control over the quality of building work.  Building work carried out in 1987 with no BC involvement, which was deffective according to 1987 standards, could well have problems with ingress of water/moisture,condensation ('damp') etc because the builder opted out of doing things properly.

That is the reason why people should be concerned about the lack of BR paperwork on a property which has clearly had significant work done to it.  The risk of BC enforcement action shouldn't be the concern.

Okay, point taken. But when did building control for this sort of work come in the the extent it is today? Not being argumentative, just want to know for my own info

Section62

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Okay, point taken. But when did building control for this sort of work come in the the extent it is today? Not being argumentative, just want to know for my own info

Building regulations have developed over decades and centuries.  Modern BR are generally taken as starting in 1966 with the 1965 Act.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1965/1373/made

However we could go back to the Great Fire of London and the London Building Act 1667 as being the start of systematic control of building works.  There are other relevant regulations/legislation such as The Public Health Act 1875 which control(led) aspects of building/construction.

tristanjourney

Hi @Section62 , do you have any comments regarding my concern over the indemnity insurance invalidation below?

Regarding the indemnity policy, we also not sure its implication on any future structural works. Does we need to be very careful when do any structural works to the house? I know that the indemnity insurance policy will be invalidated if any party makes local council aware of the previous works that don’t have building regulation. I think applying for new planning permission could be such case, especially when what your proposed work is close to those previous works. My understanding is that applying any future structural works will risk invalidating the indemnity policy, and potentially also exclude all future buyers who needs a mortgage. We will then be left with only one option of going through retrospective approval (regularisation) if we want to sell.

tristanjourney

Section62 said:

That is the reason why people should be concerned about the lack of BR paperwork on a property which has clearly had significant work done to it.  The risk of BC enforcement action shouldn't be the concern.

But that is very common, right? What do you recommend the best action for buyers? Should buyer just go away for a property with significant works done but without a completion certificate? Ask the seller to apply for a regularisation certificate?

Section62

tristanjourney said:

Hi @Section62 , do you have any comments regarding my concern over the indemnity insurance invalidation below?

 My understanding is that applying any future structural works will risk invalidating the indemnity policy, and potentially also exclude all future buyers who needs a mortgage.

I agree that the indemnity insurance route risks placing the buyer in a position where - if they want to carry out building work themselves - they can risk invalidating the indemnity policy which was supposed to protect them in respect to previous works.  Generally I'd suggest anyone who is planning significant alterations themselves should think really carefully, and ideally have a strategy which would render the policy unnecessary in any event.  (e.g. either get regularisation, or carry out additional works to overcome the deficiency)

tristanjourney said:

Section62 said:

That is the reason why people should be concerned about the lack of BR paperwork on a property which has clearly had significant work done to it.  The risk of BC enforcement action shouldn't be the concern.

But that is very common, right? What do you recommend the best action for buyers? Should buyer just go away for a property with significant works done but without a completion certificate? Ask the seller to apply for a regularisation certificate?

With work that has demonstrably been done a very long time ago then the risk of BR enforcement action is close to zero.  Therefore it isn't clear whether an indemnity policy is an appropriate solution in any case.

In broad terms, I'd suggest a reasonable strategy for someone in your position would be to ask your surveyor to pay particular attention to the parts of the building that have been added/altered to try and reduce the risk of you having major problems down the line.  (e.g. measuring/estimating wall thickness to a reasonable degree of accuracy, allowing some greater confidence about likely construction method).  Then get a good picture of what it might cost to bring any poor/defective work up to current standards, allowing you to work out whether the purchase price plus cost of potential work still represents value for money.

As an example, say you have to assume (before buying) that the garage conversion involved only dot and dabbing plasterboard onto a single thickness brick wall. This would make the space difficult to heat and may be a cause of 'damp'.  It would be possible to budget for stripping back to brick and properly insulating and lining that wall - and if this work is subject to notification/approval for BR purposes then the historic failure to get BR signoff for this aspect becomes irrelevant (and you have signoff for the more recent work to show a prospective future buyer).  Once you have completed on the purchase you are free to carry out all the intrusive investigations you wish (that vendors are typically reluctant to allow) and then make decisions about what work is actually required.

The main reason for BR indemnity policies existing is because people fear building control enforcement.  IMV this is the wrong way of looking at it.  Building Regulations exist solely to keep the occupants/user of buildings (and neighbours) safe and comfortable (in an energy efficient way).  If a building is non-compliant, then it is usually in the interests of the owner/occupier to improve it - because that will make it more comfortable or less-costly in the longer-term.

For recent work I personally wouldn't accept anything other than regularisation (or a heavy discount).  But for older work regularisation doesn't add much value unless there are major problems that need fixing.  I'd rather spend money improving the property, and using that process to overcome the mistakes of the past.

tristanjourney

Thanks for the detailed explanations. @Section62

I have a separate question. For structural works that have been done in 1960s or even earlier, there was probably no concept of completion certificate back then. Does that mean completion certificate or regularisation certificate is not needed? Similarly,  are planning permissions required back in 1960 or earlier?

Section62

tristanjourney said:

Thanks for the detailed explanations.

I have a separate question. For structural works that have been done in 1960s or even earlier, there was probably no concept of completion certificate back then. Does that mean completion certificate or regularisation certificate is not needed? Similarly,  are planning permissions required back in 1960 or earlier?

Prior to the 1960's there were some local acts covering some aspects of building works (e.g. drainage), and for these there may have been a letter from the authority confirming permission/authorisation for the work.  But for all practical purposes nobody should be concerned about a lack of paperwork for construction done that long ago - what has happened since is more likely to be a matter of concern (e.g. undocumented DIY alterations)  The building needs to be looked at as it stands today.

The need for planning permission started nationally with the 1947 Act.  Whether or not planning consent was required for work depends on the type of work and varies over time.  Unlike building regulations, there should be no concern whatsoever after the relevant time limit for planning enforcement has passed, unless enforcement action has already been commenced.

tristanjourney

what has happened since is more likely to be a matter of concern (e.g. undocumented DIY alterations)  The building needs to be looked at as it stands today.

I am worrying it will be super difficult to find out, especially if there is no paper works at all (like the design plans for the original works).

 Unlike building regulations, there should be no concern whatsoever after the relevant time limit for planning enforcement has passed, unless enforcement action has already been commenced.

Can I easily find out if there are enforcement ongoing for a property?

I also have a general question. If the owner claims that the house has done a large extension back in 1960s but they don't have any paperworks at all, and local searches also didn't show anything, then how can I be sure it is indeed done in 1960s but not 1990s? And presumably most lenders still require some sort of paperwork for the work?