Buying home with loft conversion (2015-16)

Simonon77

lf89 said:

Section62 said:

I'm not sure i'd fall for the assumption that a trader would do a bad job on their own home either! but I guess we can meet in the middle.

If a professional trader has done a project which they should know needs BC signoff and not complied with their legal obligation to do so, then I'd say it was fair to err on the side of assuming they have probably taken other shortcuts on the project.

Had they been planning on staying in the house, I don't think many builders would bother with the hassle and cost of getting BC involved when they could just build it based on their own experience. It may not fully meet BC, but is unlikely to be a cowboy job if its their own home. 

Section62

Simonon77 said:

lf89 said:

Section62 said:

I'm not sure i'd fall for the assumption that a trader would do a bad job on their own home either! but I guess we can meet in the middle.

If a professional trader has done a project which they should know needs BC signoff and not complied with their legal obligation to do so, then I'd say it was fair to err on the side of assuming they have probably taken other shortcuts on the project.

Had they been planning on staying in the house, I don't think many builders would bother with the hassle and cost of getting BC involved when they could just build it based on their own experience. It may not fully meet BC, but is unlikely to be a cowboy job if its their own home. 

There's the assumption I was talking about earlier.

Why is it unlikely a builder would do a cowboy job on their own home?  That's just an assumption that a professional would apply a higher standard in their personal circumstances than they might in their day work - the equivalent of assuming doctors and nurses never smoke, don't drink to excess and keep to a healthy weight.  A quick walk around the local hospital will demonstrate how inaccurate that assumption would be.

If it doesn't meet the requirements of the building regulations then it is a cowboy job.

And for a project such as a proper loft conversion one of the BR requirements is the notification of the project to Building Control - not bothering to get BC involved due to the "hassle and cost" is adopting a cowboy approach. This isn't something which is optional and can be dispensed with if you are experienced.  It is a legal requirement, and a decent builder would know that.

So why would anyone imagine a builder who has opted not to comply with one legal requirement for work on their own home (to avoid hassle and cost) would do the rest of the job properly and not take other shortcuts to avoid more hassle and cost?  It doesn't make sense.

It could be a good job, but it would be wrong to assume that just because the homeowner was a builder by trade. (the same principle also applies to BCO's by the way)

CSI_Yorkshire

Section62 said:

Simonon77 said:

lf89 said:

Section62 said:

I'm not sure i'd fall for the assumption that a trader would do a bad job on their own home either! but I guess we can meet in the middle.

If a professional trader has done a project which they should know needs BC signoff and not complied with their legal obligation to do so, then I'd say it was fair to err on the side of assuming they have probably taken other shortcuts on the project.

Had they been planning on staying in the house, I don't think many builders would bother with the hassle and cost of getting BC involved when they could just build it based on their own experience. It may not fully meet BC, but is unlikely to be a cowboy job if its their own home. 

There's the assumption I was talking about earlier.

Why is it unlikely a builder would do a cowboy job on their own home?  That's just an assumption that a professional would apply a higher standard in their personal circumstances than they might in their day work - the equivalent of assuming doctors and nurses never smoke, don't drink to excess and keep to a healthy weight.  A quick walk around the local hospital will demonstrate how inaccurate that assumption would be.

If it doesn't meet the requirements of the building regulations then it is a cowboy job.

I agree.

If there are any parts of the BR that the builder thinks are "over the top", "unnecessary" or "pointless", or anything similar, surely they are the bits that would get ignored straight away doing it in their own house.

They might (or might not) put extra effort on the cosmetics, but I doubt that they would have over-engineered anything.

Gavin83

There could be a lot of issues here and I do think it’s quite telling they didn’t get it signed off. One of the things to check is the height of the room. If it isn’t high enough you could be looking at having to take the whole roof off to get it up to the requirements.

Another scenario is it’s impossible to get it to a point you’ll get the necessary approval so you’ll never be able to legally consider it a bedroom.

If you were to buy this house you need to consider this space as a boarded out loft. Consider anything you gain beyond this a bonus.

lf89

Section62 said:

Simonon77 said:

lf89 said:

Section62 said:

I'm not sure i'd fall for the assumption that a trader would do a bad job on their own home either! but I guess we can meet in the middle.

If a professional trader has done a project which they should know needs BC signoff and not complied with their legal obligation to do so, then I'd say it was fair to err on the side of assuming they have probably taken other shortcuts on the project.

Had they been planning on staying in the house, I don't think many builders would bother with the hassle and cost of getting BC involved when they could just build it based on their own experience. It may not fully meet BC, but is unlikely to be a cowboy job if its their own home. 

There's the assumption I was talking about earlier.

Why is it unlikely a builder would do a cowboy job on their own home?  That's just an assumption that a professional would apply a higher standard in their personal circumstances than they might in their day work - the equivalent of assuming doctors and nurses never smoke, don't drink to excess and keep to a healthy weight.  A quick walk around the local hospital will demonstrate how inaccurate that assumption would be.

If it doesn't meet the requirements of the building regulations then it is a cowboy job.

And for a project such as a proper loft conversion one of the BR requirements is the notification of the project to Building Control - not bothering to get BC involved due to the "hassle and cost" is adopting a cowboy approach. This isn't something which is optional and can be dispensed with if you are experienced.  It is a legal requirement, and a decent builder would know that.

So why would anyone imagine a builder who has opted not to comply with one legal requirement for work on their own home (to avoid hassle and cost) would do the rest of the job properly and not take other shortcuts to avoid more hassle and cost?  It doesn't make sense.

It could be a good job, but it would be wrong to assume that just because the homeowner was a builder by trade. (the same principle also applies to BCO's by the way)

With respect, your point is just as equally an assumption about the builder as ours is so I'm not sure why you're labouring the point as much as you are.

lf89

Gavin83 said:

There could be a lot of issues here and I do think it’s quite telling they didn’t get it signed off. One of the things to check is the height of the room. If it isn’t high enough you could be looking at having to take the whole roof off to get it up to the requirements.

Another scenario is it’s impossible to get it to a point you’ll get the necessary approval so you’ll never be able to legally consider it a bedroom.

If you were to buy this house you need to consider this space as a boarded out loft. Consider anything you gain beyond this a bonus.

The height and headroom is fine, it was just as spacious as a BC signed-off conversion I went to a month ago. What is visibly lacking is the mains fire alarm and potentially the fire door - not sure what visibly denotes a fire door from a regular door! Obviously there's plenty which wouldn't be visible, which is why I was asking how to cost/assess that potential. 

Section62

lf89 said:

Section62 said:

Simonon77 said:

lf89 said:

Section62 said:

I'm not sure i'd fall for the assumption that a trader would do a bad job on their own home either! but I guess we can meet in the middle.

If a professional trader has done a project which they should know needs BC signoff and not complied with their legal obligation to do so, then I'd say it was fair to err on the side of assuming they have probably taken other shortcuts on the project.

Had they been planning on staying in the house, I don't think many builders would bother with the hassle and cost of getting BC involved when they could just build it based on their own experience. It may not fully meet BC, but is unlikely to be a cowboy job if its their own home. 

There's the assumption I was talking about earlier.

Why is it unlikely a builder would do a cowboy job on their own home?  That's just an assumption that a professional would apply a higher standard in their personal circumstances than they might in their day work - the equivalent of assuming doctors and nurses never smoke, don't drink to excess and keep to a healthy weight.  A quick walk around the local hospital will demonstrate how inaccurate that assumption would be.

If it doesn't meet the requirements of the building regulations then it is a cowboy job.

And for a project such as a proper loft conversion one of the BR requirements is the notification of the project to Building Control - not bothering to get BC involved due to the "hassle and cost" is adopting a cowboy approach. This isn't something which is optional and can be dispensed with if you are experienced.  It is a legal requirement, and a decent builder would know that.

So why would anyone imagine a builder who has opted not to comply with one legal requirement for work on their own home (to avoid hassle and cost) would do the rest of the job properly and not take other shortcuts to avoid more hassle and cost?  It doesn't make sense.

It could be a good job, but it would be wrong to assume that just because the homeowner was a builder by trade. (the same principle also applies to BCO's by the way)

With respect, your point is just as equally an assumption about the builder as ours is so I'm not sure why you're labouring the point as much as you are.

No, Simonon77's point is that the job must be Ok because the builder owned the house.  My point is there is no definitive way of knowing whether the job is good or bad without uncovering the work - I'm not assuming the work is good or bad, nor that it must be bad because the owner was a builder.

This is why the regularisation process requires investigation into what has actually been done, rather than saying it was done by a builder therefore it must be Ok.

If I'm "labouring the point" then it is because I've seen enough people in a similar position to yourself buying a property while falling for the assumption that a trader working on their own property will do the work to compliant levels. Then finding out they were wrong.  A builder who ignores or avoids their legal responsibilities shouldn't be trusted simply because they were once the owner of the property.

You said you "Appreciate any/all insight".  With respect, your reply makes it feel that isn't the case. Perhaps you are trying to convince yourself that everything will be Ok?