Seller declared walls knocked down were non-load bearing... should I drop this? (no pun intended)

justpassingthrough24

Section62 said:

stuart45 said:

Looking at those plans I'd say it's quite possible those walls weren't load bearing and could've been removed without going through Building Control.
As you've already spent a fair bit on the house, I'd say in this case it would be worth spending a bit more. 

The bit that would concern me is the 'L' shaped pillar that has been created by removing the wall between the kitchen and the dining area, and making the opening between the kitchen and 'reception room'.  The external rear wall seems to sit directly above the 'L', so the issue is how that first-floor external wall is supported, and whether the 'L' is helping to provide that support, and if so, whether if has sufficient lateral stability now that walls on either side of it have gone.

I'd also want to know the history of the house and whether the ground floor has been extended to the rear, or if the first-floor extenal wall was always above an 'internal' wall on the ground floor.  Gut-feel, based only on the floor plans, I wonder whether the rear of the ground floor is made up of two extensions done at different times, which would further complicate the structural situation.

I agree with the need for a SE to have a look, but not sure they will be able to add much without seeing the structure.

Thank you everyone for your replies and such helpful insight. This comment is spot on. I have since spoken with a SE and without even viewing the property they were able to confirm that this L shaped pillar is holding up the structure as a load-bearing wall was removed. Obviously this is something that needed to have been sorted by the seller so I'm just waiting to see whether he is going to offer to get retrospective building regs and a structural report. If not, I am ready to walk away. I'm not paying for someone else's shoddy building work to get the appropriate regulation that should've been done from the start.

The extension was a ground floor extension and done by the previous seller. As far as I know, only done once. I didn't even consider the lack of structural report for this as it did have the appropriate building regs. Is it worth me checking this with the SE also?

I will post any updates on this thread. Once again cannot thank you all enough for the advice as I probably would have just let it slide otherwise.

justpassingthrough24

stuart45 said:

Section62 said:

stuart45 said:

Looking at those plans I'd say it's quite possible those walls weren't load bearing and could've been removed without going through Building Control.
As you've already spent a fair bit on the house, I'd say in this case it would be worth spending a bit more. 

The bit that would concern me is the 'L' shaped pillar that has been created by removing the wall between the kitchen and the dining area, and making the opening between the kitchen and 'reception room'.  The external rear wall seems to sit directly above the 'L', so the issue is how that first-floor external wall is supported, and whether the 'L' is helping to provide that support, and if so, whether if has sufficient lateral stability now that walls on either side of it have gone.

I'd also want to know the history of the house and whether the ground floor has been extended to the rear, or if the first-floor extenal wall was always above an 'internal' wall on the ground floor.  Gut-feel, based only on the floor plans, I wonder whether the rear of the ground floor is made up of two extensions done at different times, which would further complicate the structural situation.

I agree with the need for a SE to have a look, but not sure they will be able to add much without seeing the structure.

That's a good point about the pillar. There's a lot more information about the property required. 
I wonder if Building Control were involved with the new toilet.

Funnily enough, no building regs for this either
Was offered indemnity insurance for this though which I was happy with, but not the can of worms that has been opened since.

stuart45

justpassingthrough24 said:

stuart45 said:

Section62 said:

stuart45 said:

Looking at those plans I'd say it's quite possible those walls weren't load bearing and could've been removed without going through Building Control.
As you've already spent a fair bit on the house, I'd say in this case it would be worth spending a bit more. 

The bit that would concern me is the 'L' shaped pillar that has been created by removing the wall between the kitchen and the dining area, and making the opening between the kitchen and 'reception room'.  The external rear wall seems to sit directly above the 'L', so the issue is how that first-floor external wall is supported, and whether the 'L' is helping to provide that support, and if so, whether if has sufficient lateral stability now that walls on either side of it have gone.

I'd also want to know the history of the house and whether the ground floor has been extended to the rear, or if the first-floor extenal wall was always above an 'internal' wall on the ground floor.  Gut-feel, based only on the floor plans, I wonder whether the rear of the ground floor is made up of two extensions done at different times, which would further complicate the structural situation.

I agree with the need for a SE to have a look, but not sure they will be able to add much without seeing the structure.

That's a good point about the pillar. There's a lot more information about the property required. 
I wonder if Building Control were involved with the new toilet.

Funnily enough, no building regs for this either
Was offered indemnity insurance for this though which I was happy with, but not the can of worms that has been opened since.

The problem with an indemnity policy is that it only covers you for Building Control issuing you with an enforcement notice. It doesn't cover you for sub standard work, and the drains blocking up. There's always a question mark with people who avoid getting regs.