No sure whether to pull out of house purchase

ThisIsWeird

eddddy said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Or, if the vendor refuses to allow exploratory investigations, say of the type that would cause cosmetic damage, then a watertight indemnity policy should be offered instead.

I think you might have misunderstood what a "lack of building regulations" indemnity policy normally covers.

• It typically covers costs resulting from the Council taking enforcement action

• It doesn't typically cover any costs resulting from a wall falling down

Thanks Edddy.

Ah, interesting.

I did ask about indemnity policies before on this site, to see just what they would cover in practice.

I understood the answer to be, in essence, "Whatever is the cheapest way to make good whatever was covered, if it subsequently proves to be an issue."

So, if, say, a loft conversion was carried out without BRegs, and the vendor refused to have it 'regularised', they could instead provide an indemnity policy - not against BC taking action (any chance of that happening expires anyway, so pretty pointless), but if something were to occur due to faulty construction.

Ie, it's indemnifying; "I'm telling you it's built just fine, but if it falls down, here's your insurance!" Or, less dramatically, if the new owner found out later that it was potentially dangerous, the policy would cover remedial action.

That's not the case?

user1977

ThisIsWeird said:

eddddy said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Or, if the vendor refuses to allow exploratory investigations, say of the type that would cause cosmetic damage, then a watertight indemnity policy should be offered instead.

I think you might have misunderstood what a "lack of building regulations" indemnity policy normally covers.

• It typically covers costs resulting from the Council taking enforcement action

• It doesn't typically cover any costs resulting from a wall falling down

Thanks Edddy.

Ah, interesting.

I did ask about indemnity policies before on this site, to see just what they would cover in practice.

I understood the answer to be, in essence, "Whatever is the cheapest way to make good whatever was covered, if it subsequently proves to be an issue."

So, if, say, a loft conversion was carried out without BRegs, and the vendor refused to have it 'regularised', they could instead provide an indemnity policy - not against BC taking action (any chance of that happening expires anyway, so pretty pointless), but if something were to occur due to faulty construction.

Ie, it's indemnifying; "I'm telling you it's built just fine, but if it falls down, here's your insurance!" Or, less dramatically, if the new owner found out later that it was potentially dangerous, the policy would cover remedial action.

That's not the case?

Please see the explanation here (again!):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79573679/#Comment_79573679

ThisIsWeird

user1977 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

eddddy said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Or, if the vendor refuses to allow exploratory investigations, say of the type that would cause cosmetic damage, then a watertight indemnity policy should be offered instead.

I think you might have misunderstood what a "lack of building regulations" indemnity policy normally covers.

• It typically covers costs resulting from the Council taking enforcement action

• It doesn't typically cover any costs resulting from a wall falling down

Thanks Edddy.

Ah, interesting.

I did ask about indemnity policies before on this site, to see just what they would cover in practice.

I understood the answer to be, in essence, "Whatever is the cheapest way to make good whatever was covered, if it subsequently proves to be an issue."

So, if, say, a loft conversion was carried out without BRegs, and the vendor refused to have it 'regularised', they could instead provide an indemnity policy - not against BC taking action (any chance of that happening expires anyway, so pretty pointless), but if something were to occur due to faulty construction.

Ie, it's indemnifying; "I'm telling you it's built just fine, but if it falls down, here's your insurance!" Or, less dramatically, if the new owner found out later that it was potentially dangerous, the policy would cover remedial action.

That's not the case?

Please see the explanation here (again!):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79573679/#Comment_79573679

That Bendy House was a right pita, eh?

Thanks, User. And very reassuring. Between Building's and Indemnity, all should be ok.

Doesn't match up with what Edddy said above, tho', altho' he did add the caveat he was referring to a "lack of building regulations" indemnity.

user1977

ThisIsWeird said:

user1977 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

eddddy said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Or, if the vendor refuses to allow exploratory investigations, say of the type that would cause cosmetic damage, then a watertight indemnity policy should be offered instead.

I think you might have misunderstood what a "lack of building regulations" indemnity policy normally covers.

• It typically covers costs resulting from the Council taking enforcement action

• It doesn't typically cover any costs resulting from a wall falling down

Thanks Edddy.

Ah, interesting.

I did ask about indemnity policies before on this site, to see just what they would cover in practice.

I understood the answer to be, in essence, "Whatever is the cheapest way to make good whatever was covered, if it subsequently proves to be an issue."

So, if, say, a loft conversion was carried out without BRegs, and the vendor refused to have it 'regularised', they could instead provide an indemnity policy - not against BC taking action (any chance of that happening expires anyway, so pretty pointless), but if something were to occur due to faulty construction.

Ie, it's indemnifying; "I'm telling you it's built just fine, but if it falls down, here's your insurance!" Or, less dramatically, if the new owner found out later that it was potentially dangerous, the policy would cover remedial action.

That's not the case?

Please see the explanation here (again!):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79573679/#Comment_79573679

That Bendy House was a right pita, eh?

Thanks, User. And very reassuring. Between Building's and Indemnity, all should be ok.

Doesn't match up with what Edddy said above, tho'

I think you're still misunderstanding. Edddy's advice is correct.

stuart45

The only people who can really tell you about all the potential structural problems are the ones who built it.

ThisIsWeird

user1977 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

user1977 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

eddddy said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Or, if the vendor refuses to allow exploratory investigations, say of the type that would cause cosmetic damage, then a watertight indemnity policy should be offered instead.

I think you might have misunderstood what a "lack of building regulations" indemnity policy normally covers.

• It typically covers costs resulting from the Council taking enforcement action

• It doesn't typically cover any costs resulting from a wall falling down

Thanks Edddy.

Ah, interesting.

I did ask about indemnity policies before on this site, to see just what they would cover in practice.

I understood the answer to be, in essence, "Whatever is the cheapest way to make good whatever was covered, if it subsequently proves to be an issue."

So, if, say, a loft conversion was carried out without BRegs, and the vendor refused to have it 'regularised', they could instead provide an indemnity policy - not against BC taking action (any chance of that happening expires anyway, so pretty pointless), but if something were to occur due to faulty construction.

Ie, it's indemnifying; "I'm telling you it's built just fine, but if it falls down, here's your insurance!" Or, less dramatically, if the new owner found out later that it was potentially dangerous, the policy would cover remedial action.

That's not the case?

Please see the explanation here (again!):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79573679/#Comment_79573679

That Bendy House was a right pita, eh?

Thanks, User. And very reassuring. Between Building's and Indemnity, all should be ok.

Doesn't match up with what Edddy said above, tho'

I think you're still misunderstanding. Edddy's advice is correct.

Edddy - who I respect hugely on here for his input, as I do you for yours - added an unasked-for caveat above, to do with BC-action, which made it not the answer I was after.

So, an indemnity remains; "They'll cover whatever the insurer thinks the cheapest solution is, whether that's successfully contesting legal action, making good the works, or just demolishing them and compensating you for any reduction in value of the property (that's why the amount of cover is the value of the property)."?

That's good news.

ThisIsWeird

stuart45 said:

The only people who can really tell you about all the potential structural problems are the ones who built it.

As long as it remains 'potential', all is fine

eddddy

ThisIsWeird said:

Edddy - who I respect hugely on here for his input, as I do you for yours - added an unasked-for caveat above, to do with BC-action, which made it not the answer I was after.

It's not a caveat - it's the fundamental purpose of a building regs indemnity insurance policy.

Here's an extract from sample policy documentation:

What is insured?

The cover provided is: Loss sustained in the event of Enforcement of building regulations in respect of the Works.

Link: https://gcs-title.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Building-Regulations.pdf

And what @user1977 is saying is -

If enforcement action is taken against you for lack of building regulations then this is how the insurer will decide how much to pay you...

"[the insurer] will cover whatever the insurer thinks the cheapest solution is, whether that's successfully contesting legal action [i.e. contesting the enforcement notice], making good the works, or just demolishing them and compensating you for any reduction in value of the property (that's why the amount of cover is the value of the property)."

user1977

eddddy said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Edddy - who I respect hugely on here for his input, as I do you for yours - added an unasked-for caveat above, to do with BC-action, which made it not the answer I was after.

It's not a caveat - it's the fundamental purpose of a building regs indemnity insurance policy.

Here's an extract from sample policy documentation:

What is insured?

The cover provided is: Loss sustained in the event of Enforcement of building regulations in respect of the Works.

Link: https://gcs-title.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Building-Regulations.pdf

And what @user1977 is saying is -

If enforcement action is taken against you for lack of building regulations then this is how the insurer will decide how much to pay you...

"[the insurer] will cover whatever the insurer thinks the cheapest solution is, whether that's successfully contesting legal action [i.e. contesting the enforcement notice], making good the works, or just demolishing them and compensating you for any reduction in value of the property (that's why the amount of cover is the value of the property)."

Yes, like I said in the next paragraph of my linked post from last year:

"But only to the extent that you're actually required to by building control...."

doodling

Hi,

For clarity, if for example an internal load bearing wall is removed and replaced by an inadequate support and that subsequently collapses causing the upstairs bedroom to end up in your lounge then:

1. Your house insurance will not cover it because it was defective workmanship which is not an insured risk.

2. An indemnity policy will not cover it because the Building Control function at your local councils was not taking any legal action against you.  Depending on the terms of the policy, it might pay for any work the building control function deems necessary after the collapse (e.g. to protect adjacent properties from damage, not to restore the structure) but you'd need to read it to check (not having read one I have no idea if that is the case).

3. You will have to pay to fix it.

The risks associated with construction defects lie pretty much entirely with the homeowner.