Selling house, no building regs sign off on extension

DollyC2012

Hi all
Just after some advice on how to proceed with selling my house.
I have an extension that was completed in 2013, a local firm oversaw the building controls and came for regular inspections.
On the last visit there was an issue with the spare bedroom Velux (we’d installed a centre hung window instead of a top hung one) and they couldn’t sign it off til this was replaced. A few years go by (spare bedroom rarely used so it fell down the priority list) and I finally get round to changing the window and called them to come back out. They said my file had been closed due to inactivity and to get sign off I would have to start a new application. They would have to come and dig to inspect the foundations they had already inspected and it would cost me a grand on top of the fee I had already paid them. 
So now I want to sell the house. Do I need to pay their ransom or is there another way (insurance?) that would satisfy my buyers solicitor? 

It’s not on the market yet, I just wanted to get everything in order before it’s listed.

BarelySentientAI

Generally, you can't buy indemnity insurance for something that is already known.

Not really a ransom if the project was sat around for years, many companies would have closed files and with GDPR there is a perceived need to delete files from closed cases.  That's on you, not on them.

If they got challenged about the sign-off, they would need evidence, so they can't rely on "I think I remember it was ok when we looked before".

DollyC2012

Oh yes, I know it’s my fault. I wasn’t aware of any time limit given by them else I would have got it sorted. 

silvercar

If you have all the documents showing that the only outstanding item was the window, then you could show that plus the change of window paperwork. You may find a building control firm that would accept that paperwork. 

Or you tell the buyers it was done in 2013 and they should rely on their own survey. You say that later on you changed the window and have the paperwork on that. Your buyers could accept that or they may want an indemnity. It’s worthless, so it doesn’t really matter whether a claim would be valid, if paying a couple of hundred pounds gets boxes ticked, it is worth it.

Devongardener

Your local council building control inspectors might be able to sign it off for a lower fee.   We did this for a large dg window installed by a fitter who was not FENSA registered.  I think it was about £75.

ThisIsWeird

Hi Dolly.

Wow, that's unlucky.

How much evidence do you have to support your explanation - eg that they said at the time that the Velux style was the only outstanding issue? And do you have copies of any interim reports from them following their mid-build visits?

And who was the builder? Could they lend any support? Do they have copies? Did they take pics? Did you?!

I neglected to have our BC loft conversion 'completion-cert'd' when the builder went bust shortly after they finished the outer shell job - I was 2nd fixing. I got in touch with the LA's BCO around 15 years later, and the (new) guy came out and insisted only that I add a bathroom extractor; all their records seemingly remain on file, and are even on the public Portal.

GDPR ma botty -  building regs certification is for life! I think it's completely wrong and unfair that they have deleted this.

Whether anything can be done is another matter.

DollyC2012

Thanks for all the helpful replies!
I’ll have a dig through the paperwork, hopefully there’s something in there. 

Sounds like it’s worth going to the council building control instead of the private one I used. 

If they come out will they be assessing the extension on the regulations from 2013 or the most current up to date ones? I’m a bit scared of opening a can of worms with them, though the extension is really well built by a local builder and has given me no issues in the past 10 years. 

silvercar

DollyC2012 said:

Thanks for all the helpful replies!
I’ll have a dig through the paperwork, hopefully there’s something in there. 

Sounds like it’s worth going to the council building control instead of the private one I used. 

If they come out will they be assessing the extension on the regulations from 2013 or the most current up to date ones? I’m a bit scared of opening a can of worms with them, though the extension is really well built by a local builder and has given me no issues in the past 10 years. 

Only has to comply with the regulations in force at the time it was done, though I don’t know what effect starting again with BC does. You have nothing to lose. It either passes or not, there is no black mark for failing.

ThisIsWeird

DollyC2012 said:

Thanks for all the helpful replies!
I’ll have a dig through the paperwork, hopefully there’s something in there. 

Sounds like it’s worth going to the council building control instead of the private one I used. 

If they come out will they be assessing the extension on the regulations from 2013 or the most current up to date ones? I’m a bit scared of opening a can of worms with them, though the extension is really well built by a local builder and has given me no issues in the past 10 years. 

That bird has flown. The LA BCO won't be interested - unless, perhaps, they also insist you do everything the other group required, such as exposing your foundations...

All I was pointing out is that I think the private co's excuse of GDPR is hollow, and certainly doesn't apply to LA-Build Control.

Does that company routinely dispose of all their issued completion certs after 6 years or so?! Surely to gawd not - these are precious and important documents, and their clients may well require replacement copies at some point. So, if they don't dispose of completed certs, why do so for one that's near 99% completed? Is it somehow invalid? Obviously not - it is 99% complete.

They probably have a T&C that says they hold no responsibility for maintaining copies of docs after X years - but that's a complete get-out.

I, personally, think they are remiss. But, most likely now't you can do about it. (Other than post honest reviews on every site you can, pointing out the pitfalls of using them instead of the LA or a more conscientious co). Hmm, could that 'threat' be used to encourage a discount...

Tbh, if I were buying your house, and you could provide decent evidence of interim reports, and that the only remaining issue of contention was the choice of Velux opening, I would not be too bovvered.

Perhaps ask your conveyancer about indemnity policies, although I'm not sure what it would guard against - certainly not action being taken for non-compliance, as that bird has well-flown too. Perhaps to cover any structural issue that could arise due to the extension not having been built to evidenced regs? No idea.

DollyC2012

So you think I should sit tight and do nothing/wait to see what the conveyancers ask for? 

BarelySentientAI

ThisIsWeird said:

DollyC2012 said:

Thanks for all the helpful replies!
I’ll have a dig through the paperwork, hopefully there’s something in there. 

Sounds like it’s worth going to the council building control instead of the private one I used. 

If they come out will they be assessing the extension on the regulations from 2013 or the most current up to date ones? I’m a bit scared of opening a can of worms with them, though the extension is really well built by a local builder and has given me no issues in the past 10 years. 

All I was pointing out is that I think the private co's excuse of GDPR is hollow, and certainly doesn't apply to LA-Build Control.

Does that company routinely dispose of all their issued completion certs after 6 years or so?! Surely to gawd not - these are precious and important documents, and their clients may well require replacement copies at some point. So, if they don't dispose of completed certs, why do so for one that's near 99% completed? Is it somehow invalid? Obviously not - it is 99% complete.

They probably have a T&C that says they hold no responsibility for maintaining copies of docs after X years - but that's a complete get-out.

I, personally, think they are remiss. 

I was just guessing that they might claim GDPR as a reason for deleting things - it could just be some sort of T&Cs thing - and I think there is a substantial difference between deleting an issued certification and deleting supporting information for what appears at the time to be an aborted application.

"This is a completed and issued certificate" is a reason to keep data.
"This client hasn't been in contact for several years after we asked them for the information that we need to keep working" is much more of a reason to delete the file.

If you do think that deleting it was premature, how long do you think they should hold on to partial assessments just in case a client decides to break radio silence?  5 years? 10? Forever?  And how "complete" does it need to be to be worth keeping?  It's not well defined, and the ICO doesn't like companies keeping data "unnecessarily".

But we are all well aware that GDPR gets thrown up as an excuse for things that it really has no relevance to, so it wouldn't surprise me to see it quoted.