Will we need building regs indemnity insurance ?

JOBEN

We are putting our house up for sale, in 2007 we added a conservatory which didn’t need planning permission. However, the builder took the back window out and made it a through room, a lintel was put in etc. we haven’t got building regs for it, my husband said we didn’t need it. I suspected we did but ! 

Any advice greatly appreciated 
thanks Jo

Section62

JOBEN said:

We are putting our house up for sale, in 2007 we added a conservatory which didn’t need planning permission. However, the builder took the back window out and made it a through room, a lintel was put in etc. we haven’t got building regs for it, my husband said we didn’t need it. I suspected we did but ! 

You were right, he was wrong.  But if the work was done in 2007 it is well past any enforcement action.

Whether you'll need an indemnity policy depends on the buyer though.  They may not care, or they (or their lender) may insist on an indemnity policy regardless.

One of the issues is you know the work was done in 2007, but would a buyer be able to prove that in the future?  Do you have documents (e.g. receipts) that show the knock-through was done then?

daivid

As above you are in the clear for enforcement. Things may get sticky if the house is being bought with a mortgage, particularly in terms of the valuation if the lender decides the conservatory is an issue. Do you have external grade doors between the original house and the conservatory? If not, I believe*, the conservatory (in addition to sign off for the knock through) should have been built to meet building regs and have been signed off.

*You only have to comply with the regs as were at the time of construction.

gazfocus

When we bought our house, we had a tiled roof put on our conservatory and the upvc doors taken out in between the kitchen and the conservatory. We should have had building regs sign off but we didn't know this at the time. 

When we tried to sell the house 3 years ago, the buyers solicitor at the time was a complete jobsworth and would not even consider an indemnity policy (despite the buyers not being bothered by lack of building regs) and was trying to push us to get retrospective building regs approval (called a regularization certificate). We made anonymous enquiries with the building control dept at the council and were told that in fact the entire conservatory AND kitchen would need to meet CURRENT building regs and not just the building regs that was in force at the time. We refused and the buyers ultimately pulled out. 

Second set of buyers had a much more reasonable solicitor and an indemnity policy was perfectly acceptable. 

user1977

daivid said:

As above you are in the clear for enforcement. Things may get sticky if the house is being bought with a mortgage, particularly in terms of the valuation if the lender decides the conservatory is an issue. Do you have external grade doors between the original house and the conservatory? If not, I believe*, the conservatory (in addition to sign off for the knock through) should have been built to meet building regs and have been signed off.

*You only have to comply with the regs as were at the time of construction.

I would expect that at most a lender might want an indemnity policy.

OP, it doesn't sound like there's anything for you to do or worry about at this stage anyway - if an indemnity policy is needed, your (or the buyer's) solicitor can get one pretty much instantly.

ThisIsWeird

I understand the one proviso where enforcement action could and would be taken, is if there's a safety risk. Eg that house side is at risk of collapsing.

Obviously that's extremely unlikely in your case, and the chance of spontaneous action by BC even less so. But, unless you can 'prove' - do you have photos, for example? - that a suitable lintel was installed, then buyers are going to be taking a lot on trust. So I would be happy to only need to provide an indemnity for this.

Let's hope you don't have a jobsworth who'll insist on access holes being made to prove the correct seating of a suitable lintel.

daivid

If the opening has remained stable for 16 years the buyers may be satisfied a decent job was done, though I agree if the OP only needs to provide an indemnity for the sale to progress they should consider that a win.