Buyers refusing indemnity policy

Wottykitten

Hi we are in the process of selling our house. We knocked a supporting wall down between living and dining room 8 years ago without building regulations involvement. We have been open and honest about this throughout the process and the wall is In good condition and has a steel etc. 

Our buyers have now refused an indemnity policy and are asking us to get building regulations approval retrospectively. This will be time consuming and costly so we have initially refused but now I'm worried theyl drop out of the purchase of our house. Just wondering if anyone has had any experience of this or if anyone has advice?

Thanks 

Flugelhorn

suspect they can ask for what they want - if you can provide it fine, if you can't or won't then they may or may not walk away - I am not sure what the indemnity covers ? is that you don't have building regs or that the work wasn't done properly? I think there is is time limit on both of these

kipperman

Would having a specific building engineers report be acceptable to your buyers? I imagine it would certainly be faster.

Perhaps get them to engage an engineer of their choosing and you pay ( to avoid any accusations of bias).

Wottykitten

I await the feedback from their solicitor but will look into building engineer report as that might be quicker and easier, thanks 

Section62

kipperman said:

Would having a specific building engineers report be acceptable to your buyers? I imagine it would certainly be faster.

Perhaps get them to engage an engineer of their choosing and you pay ( to avoid any accusations of bias).

The physical work (e.g. uncovering the beam for inspection) is broadly the same for an engineer's report as for BR regularisation, and may take a similar length of time.  I'd be more inclined to go for BR regularisation unless time was critical and the LABC simply couldn't provide it within the required timescale.

On the other hand, if the buyer pulls out because of this issue then finding a new buyer and going through the whole process again may take even longer than that.

As the buyer I'd also be wondering what other work might have been done on the house without BR signoff, if something as major as the removal of a structural wall had been done on the QT.

Wottykitten

They've had a full survey there has been no other structural work carried out since 8 years ago. We are just worried wel lose the house we are hoping to buy and want things sorting in the most timely manner. I'm aware that we should have sought building regulations but know lots of people don't and sell their houses with indemnity policies in places so was just wondering if anyone could think of any alternative solutions

Southend_2

Just out of interest (genuine interest, not judging) what was the reason you didn't get building regulations approval at the time you had the work done?

user1977

Wottykitten said:

We have been open and honest about this throughout the process 
 

How open and honest? Did you spell out to potential buyers at the outset that the works had been done and that you weren't proposing to provide them with anything? 

An indemnity policy only helps if there is enforcement action by building control - which in practice is hardly likely to happen, even if structural problems arise.

Wottykitten

We were just told not to bother by our builder. Which was naive of us but here we are. We have pictures of the steels going in and there's been no signs of any movement in 8 years

Section62

Wottykitten said:

They've had a full survey there has been no other structural work carried out since 8 years ago. We are just worried wel lose the house we are hoping to buy and want things sorting in the most timely manner. I'm aware that we should have sought building regulations but know lots of people don't and sell their houses with indemnity policies in places so was just wondering if anyone could think of any alternative solutions

There's other stuff incuding electrics and windows that are covered by the regulations but often done without the necessary notification/approval.  In terms of seriousness, structural work done without signoff is near the top of the list, and as a competent builder should know that this work needs engineer's calculations and BC signoff it inevitably raises questions about the competence of the builder and what else there may be an issue with.

That isn't intended as a criticism of you, just pointing out how the buyer's minds may be working.  If you now refuse point-blank to get regularisation it may add to the buyer's possible perception that there is more bad news waiting to be discovered.

Indemnity policies don't stop buildings collapsing, so personally I'd be wary of accepting one where there is a question mark on structural work.  If the buyer accepts one in your case then they can't subsequently contact BC to get regularisation, and would need to be cautious about getting their own SE to check things out at a later date because if the SE discovers a problem the buyer (by now the owner) won't be able to just ignore it.

GDB2222

An indemnity policy is, frankly, worthless. 

You may have pictures of a steel going in, but where are the engineer's calculations of the size of the steel? Were the pad stones properly installed? Is there enough support for the concentrated loads? And so on. At least, that’s what I would worry about.

 On the plus side, it’s been in place 8 years without causing any problems.