Building regs - someone help!

Richard_Webster

I'd get a surveyor to look at it. There are really two separate questions:

1. Is the work in practice structurally OK? A buyer won't want it falling down or being unsafe, fire hazard, etc. Surveyor should be able to give an opinion on this.

2. Is anyone who going to take any enforcement action because it may not comply with the regulations? As has been suggested, after 10 years the risk is very small indeed. The problem is that lenders don't seem to understand that and insist on protection and checking even for quite old work. Hence the need for an indemnity policy - but a policy is not available if you have consulted the Council about it.

Surveyors area cautious lot, but you tend to get two broad types of comment on any aspect of a property.

The first is along the lines that they couldn't see any signs of a problem in some particular respect (with disclaimers for things they couldn't see) but "your legal adviser should check that all necessary statutory consents have been obtained..."

The second is that some obvious (to the surveyor) matter "would not appear to comply with present building regulations..." If a buyer's surveyor is going to say things like that then a buyer may be genuinely concerned and may not proceed unless things are done properly. However, if the surveyor's views are more like the first type of comment, many buyers will use their common sense and see it as a pure technicality. After all there are loads of older properties with aspects of construction which would not meet modern standards, and people happily live in them! Unfortunately there will still be a few neurotic types who will want every "i" dotted etc. and won't take a common sense view.

So if the work was carried out substantially in accordance with the regulations (and it is simply the lack of paperwork that is the issue) you may get away with it with an indemnity policy (and you must reveal the basic details of the work carried out...) if it is clearly and obviously substandard then buyers will be unhappy unless you put it right.

Debt_Free_Chick

There are three different issues here

Does the buyer care? I wouldn't - and many others wouldn't. I might get the surveyor or a structural engineer to take a look, but if it's been standing for 10 years and appears to be "sound", I wouldn't be interested.

Does the local planning office care - nope. They can't take any action and simply won't be interested.

Does the lender care? Depends .... and this is usually the sticking issue.

tbs624

Doozergirl wrote: »

Those are specific problems tbs624. I'm not suggesting they don't declare problems, just that they try not to include every tiny thing they did.

Doozergirl -my post was in response to the question:

LISAW wrote: »

Are you saying, if you dont declare there is no way to tell??

the point intended was that it is not as straightforward as "just don't mention it and everything will be fine". The cases are merely an illustration of what it can cost you if you misrepresent the facts on your pre-contract forms. The principle remains applicable. If you are asked what work has been done, and whether all necessary consents were applied for and received, and you leave it blank, or fail to accurately list major work done (with or without consents) you are leaving yourself open to legal action at a later date.

LISAW wrote: »

the extent of the work was massive. almost a knock down and rebuild

To not fully declare such major works and whether appropriate consents were obtained to a purchaser is IMO withholding a material fact, ie one which is likely to affect whether or not a purchaser would wish to proceed.

Richard_Webster wrote: »

After all there are loads of older properties with aspects of construction which would not meet modern standards, and people happily live in them! Unfortunately there will still be a few neurotic types who will want every "i" dotted etc. and won't take a common sense view.

The pre-contract questions do not ask “do the alterations comply with current regulations”, it's clear that it means those that were in force at the time.

Doozergirl

tbs624 wrote: »

The pre-contract questions do not ask “do the alterations comply with current regulations”, it's clear that it means those that were in force at the time.

The quality of new building, even without the correct certificates, is often better than the original structure over which there are no questions. Some houses don't even have foundations - does it really matter that the nice double glazed windows don't have the correct certificate? There weren't building regulations in any form before 1966 (roughly) and nothing like modern standards until 1985! So there were actually *no* building regs to speak of when most houses were built, let alone the house being able to conform to those in force at the time! There doesn't seem to be much logic in the fact that it's okay for the whole house not to have building regs but a 10 year old extension is suddenly a concern because it doesn't have a certificate to say it complies with regs back then, when the fact it is standing and structurally sound after that amount of time shows that it is as safe as the house it's attached to. Added to the fact that Building Control themselves couldn't really care less.

There should be a cut off period after which the lender should take a common sense approach, see that a building is sound and accept it rather than allow vendors to fork out hundreds on worthless and pointless indemnities.

But given what exists, my view is that new work needs certification, old work that you can't do anything about can be covered by an indemnity policy rather than cutting off your nose to spite your face when you don't get the retrospective approval that nobody genuinely cares about and you can't even get an indemnity policy. That really leaves you up the creek without a paddle!

ken_and_dot

I don't believe Building Control can enforce their requirements if the work was done over twelve months ago and has gone un-noticed by them, although they will not of course issue any completion certificate either. Planning cannot enforce their requirements if the work was done over four years ago and has gone un-noticed although that does not make it legal. There are exceptions to this. If the work was in direct contravention of a condition attached to planning approval for instance, then the timescale is ten years not four.

In this case, after ten years of occupation of the redeveloped property I would have thought that a satisfactory surveyors report would have been sufficient for everybody.

Canucklehead

Good evening: Slightly off topic but as another poster raised the subject of building regulations history (predates 1966 ) for those of you interested in buildings history (and researching your own property) this is an excellent site... http://www.buildinghistory.org/Regulations.htm

HTH

Canucklehead

LISAW_2

ken_and_dot wrote: »

I don't believe Building Control can enforce their requirements if the work was done over twelve months ago and has gone un-noticed by them, although they will not of course issue any completion certificate either. Planning cannot enforce their requirements if the work was done over four years ago and has gone un-noticed although that does not make it legal. There are exceptions to this. If the work was in direct contravention of a condition attached to planning approval for instance, then the timescale is ten years not four.

In this case, after ten years of occupation of the redeveloped property I would have thought that a satisfactory surveyors report would have been sufficient for everybody.

Thanks for everyones advice. The way i see it to tell her now is that cos it was done so long ago, it will only come up in the surevors report if he is really fussy, or if the lender of any prespective buyer is really fussy. The only thing I am left unclear on is what she should declare on the fore mentioned forms?

Richard_Webster

You must declare that building work has taken place and when, and if you don't say what the work was the buyer's solicitor is bound to ask. In answer to questions about whether permissions etc were obtained you just say "No". The buyer's solicitor will then have to decide what to do about this. Your solcitor can elaborate that answer by offering appropriate indemnity policies.