New build flat, the roof is sagging

lincroft1710

snowqueen555 said:

bobster2 said:

snowqueen555 said:

The roof sag has occurred after the new roof was installed (I looked on google streetview history), and notice it is only one of the roofs and not the other two which were all done together. I have posted this on some diy forums, the consensus is that the loft conversions was done shoddily or calculations are not correct. Either way a new roof shouldn't be sagging. The structure wasn't completely replaced, but reinforced and certain beams were replaced

The bottom will be made into flats so its all been turned to residential.

Okay so sounds like any future problems with the roof would be footed by the leaseholder, with no warranty and the fact that buildings insurance doesn't cover it. 

I could pay for a roof survey to be done, the issue with that is I have never found a new build developer who would allow surveyors in before sale.

It's not really "new build" is it - it's a renovation/conversion.

If the developer will not permit you to have your own fully independent roof survey carried out - I would walk away.

It's not built from scratch, but renovations like this is classed as a new build by the seller and the bank as it has been gutted and rebuilt.

Yeah I am thinking that too.

The bank and seller are wrong it is not a "new build" it is a conversion. A new build is a property which is brand new from the ground up.


Such sagging is very commonplace where concrete tiles are used to replace lighter weight slates and the supporting roof timbers are inadequate for the extra weight. I first saw evidence of this over 50 years ago and by now you would have thought the message would have got through.


You say the general consensus is to walk away, well I have one thing to say - I agree wholeheartedly!

km1500

I am surprised you are even asking!

Buy a flat with a recently overhauled  sagging roof?

definitely walk away!

NameUnavailable

The builder (freeholder?) is probably aware of their mistake in not reinforcing the roof properly. They may well be thinking we'll leave it for now and then when all flats have been sold, tell the leaseholders that roof repairs are needed - and they (YOU!) will be responsible for the cost.

Walk, no, run!!

Doozergirl

If that is newly converted then your mortgage lender will expect to see a 10 year structural warranty on it.   

Your developer is going to get a bit of a shock if they're not offering one! 

snowqueen555

Doozergirl said:

If that is newly converted then your mortgage lender will expect to see a 10 year structural warranty on it.   

Your developer is going to get a bit of a shock if they're not offering one! 

It's under a professional consultant certificate, which is for 6 years but isn't a warranty. Most banks lend on it and the mortgage  is pretty much agreed on at this point. PCC seem pretty shady to me from research. I had assumed the qualified architect/engineer needs to be independent but the info I've just received yesterday is that the architect signing off the work is the company that's actually doing the development. Surely there is a conflict of interest there.

NameUnavailable said:

The builder (freeholder?) is probably aware of their mistake in not reinforcing the roof properly. They may well be thinking we'll leave it for now and then when all flats have been sold, tell the leaseholders that roof repairs are needed - and they (YOU!) will be responsible for the cost.

Walk, no, run!!

I think so as well. It's not imminently dangerous but an issue that will need to be fixed in the future. But I'm also wondering if once I get the paperwork can I not contact building control to query this roof. I am still hoping that I can either wangle a roof warranty, get a discount on the flat, or walk away.

-

I think I'm most likely going to walk away but it's a real frustration to waste time and money, I've been looking for so long.

lincroft1710

snowqueen555 said:

Doozergirl said:

If that is newly converted then your mortgage lender will expect to see a 10 year structural warranty on it.   

Your developer is going to get a bit of a shock if they're not offering one! 

It's under a professional consultant certificate, which is for 6 years but isn't a warranty. Most banks lend on it and the mortgage  is pretty much agreed on at this point. PCC seem pretty shady to me from research. I had assumed the qualified architect/engineer needs to be independent but the info I've just received yesterday is that the architect signing off the work is the company that's actually doing the development. Surely there is a conflict of interest there.

NameUnavailable said:

The builder (freeholder?) is probably aware of their mistake in not reinforcing the roof properly. They may well be thinking we'll leave it for now and then when all flats have been sold, tell the leaseholders that roof repairs are needed - and they (YOU!) will be responsible for the cost.

Walk, no, run!!

I think so as well. It's not imminently dangerous but an issue that will need to be fixed in the future. But I'm also wondering if once I get the paperwork can I not contact building control to query this roof. I am still hoping that I can either wangle a roof warranty, get a discount on the flat, or walk away.

-

I think I'm most likely going to walk away but it's a real frustration to waste time and money, I've been looking for so long.

As there is a flat above yours, it is doubtful the roof will belong to you, it will form the external walls of the loft flat above. So forget "roof warranty", discount and contacting building control, just walk away.

user1977

lincroft1710 said:

snowqueen555 said:

Doozergirl said:

If that is newly converted then your mortgage lender will expect to see a 10 year structural warranty on it.   

Your developer is going to get a bit of a shock if they're not offering one! 

It's under a professional consultant certificate, which is for 6 years but isn't a warranty. Most banks lend on it and the mortgage  is pretty much agreed on at this point. PCC seem pretty shady to me from research. I had assumed the qualified architect/engineer needs to be independent but the info I've just received yesterday is that the architect signing off the work is the company that's actually doing the development. Surely there is a conflict of interest there.

NameUnavailable said:

The builder (freeholder?) is probably aware of their mistake in not reinforcing the roof properly. They may well be thinking we'll leave it for now and then when all flats have been sold, tell the leaseholders that roof repairs are needed - and they (YOU!) will be responsible for the cost.

Walk, no, run!!

I think so as well. It's not imminently dangerous but an issue that will need to be fixed in the future. But I'm also wondering if once I get the paperwork can I not contact building control to query this roof. I am still hoping that I can either wangle a roof warranty, get a discount on the flat, or walk away.

-

I think I'm most likely going to walk away but it's a real frustration to waste time and money, I've been looking for so long.

As there is a flat above yours, it is doubtful the roof will belong to you, it will form the external walls of the loft flat above. So forget "roof warranty", discount and contacting building control, just walk away.

Although academic if the OP is walking away anyway, the fact the roof wouldn't belong to them doesn't mean they couldn't benefit from a warranty against costs being incurred.

snowqueen555

lincroft1710 said:

snowqueen555 said:

Doozergirl said:

If that is newly converted then your mortgage lender will expect to see a 10 year structural warranty on it.   

Your developer is going to get a bit of a shock if they're not offering one! 

It's under a professional consultant certificate, which is for 6 years but isn't a warranty. Most banks lend on it and the mortgage  is pretty much agreed on at this point. PCC seem pretty shady to me from research. I had assumed the qualified architect/engineer needs to be independent but the info I've just received yesterday is that the architect signing off the work is the company that's actually doing the development. Surely there is a conflict of interest there.

NameUnavailable said:

The builder (freeholder?) is probably aware of their mistake in not reinforcing the roof properly. They may well be thinking we'll leave it for now and then when all flats have been sold, tell the leaseholders that roof repairs are needed - and they (YOU!) will be responsible for the cost.

Walk, no, run!!

I think so as well. It's not imminently dangerous but an issue that will need to be fixed in the future. But I'm also wondering if once I get the paperwork can I not contact building control to query this roof. I am still hoping that I can either wangle a roof warranty, get a discount on the flat, or walk away.

-

I think I'm most likely going to walk away but it's a real frustration to waste time and money, I've been looking for so long.

As there is a flat above yours, it is doubtful the roof will belong to you, it will form the external walls of the loft flat above. So forget "roof warranty", discount and contacting building control, just walk away.

user1977 said:

lincroft1710 said:

snowqueen555 said:

Doozergirl said:

If that is newly converted then your mortgage lender will expect to see a 10 year structural warranty on it.   

Your developer is going to get a bit of a shock if they're not offering one! 

It's under a professional consultant certificate, which is for 6 years but isn't a warranty. Most banks lend on it and the mortgage  is pretty much agreed on at this point. PCC seem pretty shady to me from research. I had assumed the qualified architect/engineer needs to be independent but the info I've just received yesterday is that the architect signing off the work is the company that's actually doing the development. Surely there is a conflict of interest there.

NameUnavailable said:

The builder (freeholder?) is probably aware of their mistake in not reinforcing the roof properly. They may well be thinking we'll leave it for now and then when all flats have been sold, tell the leaseholders that roof repairs are needed - and they (YOU!) will be responsible for the cost.

Walk, no, run!!

I think so as well. It's not imminently dangerous but an issue that will need to be fixed in the future. But I'm also wondering if once I get the paperwork can I not contact building control to query this roof. I am still hoping that I can either wangle a roof warranty, get a discount on the flat, or walk away.

-

I think I'm most likely going to walk away but it's a real frustration to waste time and money, I've been looking for so long.

As there is a flat above yours, it is doubtful the roof will belong to you, it will form the external walls of the loft flat above. So forget "roof warranty", discount and contacting building control, just walk away.

Although academic if the OP is walking away anyway, the fact the roof wouldn't belong to them doesn't mean they couldn't benefit from a warranty against costs being incurred.

All the flats will come under one management company/service charge, so yes, anything and everything shared/communal would be divided I imagine.

I'm still hoping there is something that can be sorted, but as I've already paid for the searches etc I may as well wait for all that to come in and then make conveyancing enquiries.

lincroft1710

user1977 said:

lincroft1710 said:

snowqueen555 said:

Doozergirl said:

If that is newly converted then your mortgage lender will expect to see a 10 year structural warranty on it.   

Your developer is going to get a bit of a shock if they're not offering one! 

It's under a professional consultant certificate, which is for 6 years but isn't a warranty. Most banks lend on it and the mortgage  is pretty much agreed on at this point. PCC seem pretty shady to me from research. I had assumed the qualified architect/engineer needs to be independent but the info I've just received yesterday is that the architect signing off the work is the company that's actually doing the development. Surely there is a conflict of interest there.

NameUnavailable said:

The builder (freeholder?) is probably aware of their mistake in not reinforcing the roof properly. They may well be thinking we'll leave it for now and then when all flats have been sold, tell the leaseholders that roof repairs are needed - and they (YOU!) will be responsible for the cost.

Walk, no, run!!

I think so as well. It's not imminently dangerous but an issue that will need to be fixed in the future. But I'm also wondering if once I get the paperwork can I not contact building control to query this roof. I am still hoping that I can either wangle a roof warranty, get a discount on the flat, or walk away.

-

I think I'm most likely going to walk away but it's a real frustration to waste time and money, I've been looking for so long.

As there is a flat above yours, it is doubtful the roof will belong to you, it will form the external walls of the loft flat above. So forget "roof warranty", discount and contacting building control, just walk away.

Although academic if the OP is walking away anyway, the fact the roof wouldn't belong to them doesn't mean they couldn't benefit from a warranty against costs being incurred.

I don't disagree, but in view of OP's subsequent comment. I think the freeholder (or management company) would have to ask for a warranty. Having seen many of these sagging roofs, it is unlikely to fail in the short term, so I doubt any warranty offered would be really suitable

snowqueen555

lincroft1710 said:

user1977 said:

lincroft1710 said:

snowqueen555 said:

Doozergirl said:

If that is newly converted then your mortgage lender will expect to see a 10 year structural warranty on it.   

Your developer is going to get a bit of a shock if they're not offering one! 

It's under a professional consultant certificate, which is for 6 years but isn't a warranty. Most banks lend on it and the mortgage  is pretty much agreed on at this point. PCC seem pretty shady to me from research. I had assumed the qualified architect/engineer needs to be independent but the info I've just received yesterday is that the architect signing off the work is the company that's actually doing the development. Surely there is a conflict of interest there.

NameUnavailable said:

The builder (freeholder?) is probably aware of their mistake in not reinforcing the roof properly. They may well be thinking we'll leave it for now and then when all flats have been sold, tell the leaseholders that roof repairs are needed - and they (YOU!) will be responsible for the cost.

Walk, no, run!!

I think so as well. It's not imminently dangerous but an issue that will need to be fixed in the future. But I'm also wondering if once I get the paperwork can I not contact building control to query this roof. I am still hoping that I can either wangle a roof warranty, get a discount on the flat, or walk away.

-

I think I'm most likely going to walk away but it's a real frustration to waste time and money, I've been looking for so long.

As there is a flat above yours, it is doubtful the roof will belong to you, it will form the external walls of the loft flat above. So forget "roof warranty", discount and contacting building control, just walk away.

Although academic if the OP is walking away anyway, the fact the roof wouldn't belong to them doesn't mean they couldn't benefit from a warranty against costs being incurred.

I don't disagree, but in view of OP's subsequent comment. I think the freeholder (or management company) would have to ask for a warranty. Having seen many of these sagging roofs, it is unlikely to fail in the short term, so I doubt any warranty offered would be really suitable

it's typical to have a 10 year warranty on new builds, but surprise surprise, this development has a pcc instead, the big difference is as has been stated not a warranty so no claims can be made, other than negligence on the architects liability insurance. Basically it's impossible to make a claim. So the warranty would've been ideal.