Building Safety Act - solicitor says cannot handle purchase.

galvinonthewing

In the process of purchasing a leasehold ground floor flat in a 4 storey Grade 2 listed building. Approached local solicitor to handle this. The response:

“ it is a Lease snared by the provisions of the Building Safety Act.  We do not act in these transactions and most High Street Firms take the same view”

This is concerning news to me. I didn’t realise Grenfell had resulted in this knock on effect.  Cladding clearly isn’t an issue related to this building. I assume the safety issues relate to fire in an old building. 

So… am I stuffed? Is this flat unsaleable? Do I need to find a solicitor who will handle this? Do I walk away? Will a lender provide a mortgage?

Anyone else dealt with this issue?

EssexHebridean

Unfortunately a lot of firms are taking the view that they aren’t able to act on matters where the BSA is involved, yes. Larger firms are more likely to have someone specialising in those sorts of properties, but try to find a bigger firm in your own area rather than going to one of the conveyancing factory type outfits. 

NameUnavailable

What specifically is the problem?

EssexHebridean

The legislation has been brought in relatively fast, and there has been little time for the degree of  in-depth training around it that is really required to deal with it. Most (responsible) general conveyancing solicitors have always tended to steer away from specialist areas - many won’t touch things like lease extensions for example, although sometimes only  this is caveated by a requirement for all negotiation have already taken place by the time they are instructed. Shared ownership as well is a specialist area which not all will take on. Leasehold flats subject to BSA 2022 are now being seen as specialist conveyancing. It’s going to take a while for expertise to be gained as this is still a really new area.  You can also expect that where firms are claiming specialism and a willingness to deal, you may well be able to expect higher conveyancing fees due to the increased work involved. 

annetheman

galvinonthewing said:

In the process of purchasing a leasehold ground floor flat in a 4 storey Grade 2 listed building. Approached local solicitor to handle this. The response:

“ it is a Lease snared by the provisions of the Building Safety Act.  We do not act in these transactions and most High Street Firms take the same view”

This is concerning news to me. I didn’t realise Grenfell had resulted in this knock on effect.  Cladding clearly isn’t an issue related to this building. I assume the safety issues relate to fire in an old building. 

So… am I stuffed? Is this flat unsaleable? Do I need to find a solicitor who will handle this? Do I walk away? Will a lender provide a mortgage?

Anyone else dealt with this issue?

I have - though I didn't even know my flat was BSA liable (5 storeys in a building 11.5m high, making it just in scope - gah!). Long story short, you have to get a leaseholder declaration signed by a witness, then get a liability certificate signed by the freeholder/managing agent.

My solicitor was conservative with her communication but man was she good. She helped me sell a leasehold, shared ownership, BSA liable flat in less than 4 months end to end (2 May to 23 August) -- and I was in a chain with Title issues on my purchase which she was handling simultaneously, which I've since dropped out of after 8+ months of hell, but I digress...

The firm are London-based and mid-range in terms of cost, I got higher quotes and lower - the reason I chose them is because they did my purchase. I do not think I'm allowed to recommend solicitors by name on this forum, unfortunately? I do not work for them and receive no commission etc. Just definitely recommend them!

Edit to add: BSA handling added £500 to my conveyancing bill. It was warned of in the quote, but I ignored it because it was under 6 storeys, so didn't think it'd apply.....! 

This was my brick-clad 5 storey building, to give context you can't tell applicability just by looking (e.g. "no" - by no you probably mean brick or glass or other non-flammable - cladding, or less than 6 storeys, so it must be fine!)!

Edit edit: there's much more to a building getting a remediation-required rating EWS1 cert (B2 or A3) than just cladding - firebreaks or lack of, insulation, and general construction of the external wall or attachments (e.g. balconies) contributing to fire spread between flats will require remediation. 

Conversely, a building with the most highly flammable external cladding can have a external wall construction built in a way that minimises spread, so get a B1 (flammable but doesn't need remediation).

The certificate and declaration aims to figure out who is liable for paying for any remediation if it was, is or could in future be required.

It can get very complex.

There have been so many housing ministers since Grenfell, the BSA was a chopped and changed and ill thought out Act (passed in the time of Gove, I think) and I will not be surprised if it is repealed or changed entirely by the incoming minister in the next year or two. The whole thing is a bit of a mess, intended to clean up a mess.

bouicca21

Following this with interest.  I assumed that a converted grade 2 listed building would have built before cladding was a thing.  Is the problem that there is cladding, that there might be cladding or just that the height of the building brings it within the scope of the act?

My own block of flats is lower than specified in the act and I know that it is brick built with cavity walls.  Not sure how I’d prove the walls are brick as it looks much the same from the outside as the more recently built block next door, which definitely does have brick cladding.

user1977

bouicca21 said:

I assumed that a converted grade 2 listed building would have built before cladding was a thing.  

So was Grenfell Tower...

galvinonthewing

NameUnavailable said:

What specifically is the problem?

Finding a local solicitor who is prepared to handle it. 

galvinonthewing

bouicca21 said:

Following this with interest.  I assumed that a converted grade 2 listed building would have built before cladding was a thing.  Is the problem that there is cladding, that there might be cladding or just that the height of the building brings it within the scope of the act?

My own block of flats is lower than specified in the act and I know that it is brick built with cavity walls.  Not sure how I’d prove the walls are brick as it looks much the same from the outside as the more recently built block next door, which definitely does have brick cladding.

The height of the building brings it within the scope of the Act.