Professional Consultant Certificate impasse

Pat38493

Hi - we are in the process of trying to buy a property that has been extended and “renovated” recently.

Our surveyor says that we should not buy the property unless a PCC is provided.

The seller is saying “ The architect did not oversee the renovation works, he simply designed the extension and obtained planning consent - his brief ended there. An architect does not provide a "Professional Consultant Certificate" for such work. The Building Reg's Certificate attached covers this.”

Our solicitor says they are going to put a request for a PCC as part of their enquiries to the seller’s solicitor but we will probably get the same answer back.

Does anyone know anything more about this - is it possible to obtain such a certificate retrospectively if none was required, and is the seller correct to say that this doesn’t apply because the architect was only engaged to do the initial design.

The surveyor has been pretty black and white about it and advises we should not buy the house if no PCC is available.  

The other question in my mind is what should the PCC cover?  They have done a 2 storey extension, but most of the other work is not structural e.g. new bathrooms, new kitchen, decorating / plastering etc - the core layout of the original structure has not been altered.  An architect would not be needed to sign off on a bathroom replacement for example?

I’m also wondering what is the point of building regulations inspections if this PCC is needed as well?   They are referencing a legal case “Hart vs Large” in the emails about this.

FreeBear

Pat38493 said:

Hi - we are in the process of trying to buy a property that has been extended and “renovated” recently.

Our surveyor says that we should not buy the property unless a PCC is provided.
...

The surveyor has been pretty black and white about it and advises we should not buy the house if no PCC is available.

...

I’m also wondering what is the point of building regulations inspections if this PCC is needed as well?   They are referencing a legal case “Hart vs Large” in the emails about this.

Just had a quick read of the Hart-v-Large case. The case itself is pretty unusual and damages awarded quite high. But one of the key factors in the case was the surveyor did not advise the client to get a copy of any PCC that may or may not have been issued. Subsequently, RICS guidance on the issue is to say "do not purchase if a PCC is not available" - They are covering their backsides, and if you do go ahead with the purchase, you have no come back on them if a problem is discovered at a later date.

QrizB

I am not an expert, but from what I can tell the PCC is a declaration by the architect that they have overseen the construction of the extension and that it has adequately implemented the essential design features.

If, as the seller says, the architect wasn't commissioned to do this, there's no possibility of this architect issuing such a certificate (short of demolishing the extension then re-building it under the architect's supervision).

It therefore seems inevitable that your surveyor will advise against purchasing the property.

Hart v Large was a case where Large (the surveyor) was found liable for defects in a property purchased by Hart where Large had relied on the architect supervising construction but hadn't obtained a PCC.

Pat38493

QrizB said:

I am not an expert, but from what I can tell the PCC is a declaration by the architect that they have overseen the construction of the extension and that it has adequately implemented the essential design features.

If, as the seller says, the architect wasn't commissioned to do this, there's no possibility of this architect issuing such a certificate (short of demolishing the extension then re-building it under the architect's supervision).

It therefore seems inevitable that your surveyor will advise against purchasing the property.

Hart v Large was a case where Large (the surveyor) was found liable for defects in a property purchased by Hart where Large had relied on the architect supervising construction but hadn't obtained a PCC.

Interesting, because there is no legal obligation to employ an architect to oversee the building work on an extension, so it seems pretty odd that the surveyor would insist on this being available in situations where the architect was not overseeing the property.

If I do an internet search on how to get a retrospective PCC, there seems to be a lot of (possibly dodgy?) sites offering this and there seems to be some situations where lenders will not issue a mortgage unless one is in place.  These companies that offer a retrospective PCC I suppose must be offering some kind of insurance policy in the end because they are not going to be able to knock holes in the house to check if invisible work was done properly.

Pat38493

QrizB said:

I am not an expert, but from what I can tell the PCC is a declaration by the architect that they have overseen the construction of the extension and that it has adequately implemented the essential design features.

If, as the seller says, the architect wasn't commissioned to do this, there's no possibility of this architect issuing such a certificate (short of demolishing the extension then re-building it under the architect's supervision).

It therefore seems inevitable that your surveyor will advise against purchasing the property.

Hart v Large was a case where Large (the surveyor) was found liable for defects in a property purchased by Hart where Large had relied on the architect supervising construction but hadn't obtained a PCC.

An further update to this is that I found out that many lenders do not accept retrospective PCC.  This would not be such an issue for us as we have the option to pay off the mortgage as we are downsizing.  

However, it would be an issue if we needed to sell the house on again within 6 years from when the renovation works were completed (which was about a year ago).  It would limit the options of any buyer to obtain finance if needed.

In reality we have no intention to keep the house for less than 5 years but you never know what could happen.

It might also scupper our plan to port our very small remaining mortgage balance in order to avoid early repayment charges but this is not a huge deal.

Having done some more reading on this and discussed it with my solicitor, I am also not really convinced that a PCC provides that much real protection - I suspect it only comes into play if you find major (e.g. structural) issues.  If you find snagging faults that cost a few grand to fix, I doubt you are going to have much success trying to get redress on a retrospective PCC.

user1977

The point is more that PCC only means the consultant is undertaking a duty of care to the buyer - so you can sue them for negligence in the same way that their original client could. But that's only of help if the problem is caused by their negligence, it's not some sort of general warranty.

Definitely an issue if the works are building the whole house, but bit more of a grey area depending on the value of the extension etc in this case.

Pat38493

user1977 said:

The point is more that PCC only means the consultant is undertaking a duty of care to the buyer - so you can sue them for negligence in the same way that their original client could. But that's only of help if the problem is caused by their negligence, it's not some sort of general warranty.

Definitely an issue if the works are building the whole house, but bit more of a grey area depending on the value of the extension etc in this case.

I would also wonder if there is a question mark about buildings insurance - if the property has been renovated and extended in the last few years, and there is effectively no warranty, does this mean the buildings insurance would be invalid?

user1977

Pat38493 said:

user1977 said:

The point is more that PCC only means the consultant is undertaking a duty of care to the buyer - so you can sue them for negligence in the same way that their original client could. But that's only of help if the problem is caused by their negligence, it's not some sort of general warranty.

Definitely an issue if the works are building the whole house, but bit more of a grey area depending on the value of the extension etc in this case.

I would also wonder if there is a question mark about buildings insurance - if the property has been renovated and extended in the last few years, and there is effectively no warranty, does this mean the buildings insurance would be invalid?

No, there isn't a problem with insurance. You don't get asked a relevant question when you apply for insurance. But bear in mind that that's largely because buildings insurance doesn't cover the risk of sorting out poor quality of workmanship etc, only sudden events such as fire/flood etc.

Pat38493

user1977 said:

Pat38493 said:

user1977 said:

The point is more that PCC only means the consultant is undertaking a duty of care to the buyer - so you can sue them for negligence in the same way that their original client could. But that's only of help if the problem is caused by their negligence, it's not some sort of general warranty.

Definitely an issue if the works are building the whole house, but bit more of a grey area depending on the value of the extension etc in this case.

I would also wonder if there is a question mark about buildings insurance - if the property has been renovated and extended in the last few years, and there is effectively no warranty, does this mean the buildings insurance would be invalid?

No, there isn't a problem with insurance. You don't get asked a relevant question when you apply for insurance. But bear in mind that that's largely because buildings insurance doesn't cover the risk of sorting out poor quality of workmanship etc, only sudden events such as fire/flood etc.

Thanks.

Does this situation also effectively mean I have no structural warranty on the 2 storey extension that they have built?  There is a building regulation certificate available apparently, but, does this actually provide any protection?  e..g if I found a structural problem with the extension in a year from now after buying the house, I doubt that I can sue the council for the cost of repairs?  I'm guessing that I could sue the council for neglicence but it would be very difficult to win and possibly the damages would be limited to issues that specifically should have been obvious to the inspector and are a safety issue?

I also suspect the surveyor is going to tell me that because the extension was built recently (within the last 18 months or so), visible signs of structural defects might not have appeared yet on the visible parts of the structure.

So far, the Vendor response was that there is non building warranty because the work was all done by different contractors and individuals that he hired.

I also got some information from a friend who works at a solicitor firm and asked a colleague - they had a similar case like this, where the buyer required a mortgage, and the lender insisted that they had to purchase a retrospective full new house warranty which cost £30K on a £1m house.

Based on all my research so far I am veering towards pulling out of the purchase as it appears that I will have no legal or warranty protection and I will be assuming all the risk on my end, and also because it would be very difficult to sell the house on if we had an emergency and needed to do so within 6 years or so.

user1977

Pat38493 said:

user1977 said:

Pat38493 said:

user1977 said:

The point is more that PCC only means the consultant is undertaking a duty of care to the buyer - so you can sue them for negligence in the same way that their original client could. But that's only of help if the problem is caused by their negligence, it's not some sort of general warranty.

Definitely an issue if the works are building the whole house, but bit more of a grey area depending on the value of the extension etc in this case.

I would also wonder if there is a question mark about buildings insurance - if the property has been renovated and extended in the last few years, and there is effectively no warranty, does this mean the buildings insurance would be invalid?

No, there isn't a problem with insurance. You don't get asked a relevant question when you apply for insurance. But bear in mind that that's largely because buildings insurance doesn't cover the risk of sorting out poor quality of workmanship etc, only sudden events such as fire/flood etc.

There is a building regulation certificate available apparently, but, does this actually provide any protection?  e..g if I found a structural problem with the extension in a year from now after buying the house, I doubt that I can sue the council for the cost of repairs?  

All it does is tell you that the council inspected it and signed it off. You don't have legal recourse against the council if you find out that e.g. their inspector took a cursory glance at it because they were in a hurry to get home on a Friday.

lfc321

This all sounds very odd - hundreds of houses are bought and sold every day that have had extensions or otherwise been modified. Many of these don't even have Building Control sign-off, let alone a PCC. And as you rightly say, there is no requirement for an architect for such works in any case.

It sounds like planning permission was in place (which shows that the development was legal - assuming built according to the permission) and also that BC sign-off was done (as others have said, this is not a guarantee - but it at least provides some level of reassurance that the work was done according to current regs). What extra protection is a PCC supposed to provide?

It is perfectly normal when purchasing a 'second hand' house not to have any kind of warranty or protection. That is what surveys are for. But even with a survey, when you buy a house you always take some degree of risk over its structural integrity, as no survey will uncover all possible defects. Many houses that are bought and sold are decades or even hundreds of years old, and come with no warranties and no-one to sue if it turns out to have issues.

Is your lender insisting on a PCC, or is this just a case of 'advice' from the surveyor? If it is just the surveyor saying this, in your shoes I would be ignoring them. If the lender is insisting on a PCC (which I would be very surprised about), you may have a bigger problem.