PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.New purchase and restrictive covenant
Options
leon103
Posts: 732 Forumite
Hi after some advice if I may.
We are buying a new house which was built in 2006. The house was built on land that came with a covenant from the 1970s. One of the conditions on the original property and land was that no other property could be built on the land. But in 2006 a house was built with planning permission although for some reason they didn't get building regs.
We have asked for the seller to get building regs buy a bit worried about the covenant. All house in the same area have the same covenant, our current house included and we know some people have breached but never heard of any action taken.
The seller has taken out indemnity insurance for the breach for a sum of £200k but we are buying for more than this.
Does this all sound Ok?
We are buying a new house which was built in 2006. The house was built on land that came with a covenant from the 1970s. One of the conditions on the original property and land was that no other property could be built on the land. But in 2006 a house was built with planning permission although for some reason they didn't get building regs.
We have asked for the seller to get building regs buy a bit worried about the covenant. All house in the same area have the same covenant, our current house included and we know some people have breached but never heard of any action taken.
The seller has taken out indemnity insurance for the breach for a sum of £200k but we are buying for more than this.
Does this all sound Ok?
0
Comments
-
A whole house with no building control approval?
I promote pragmatism, but having no BCA on a brand new house in 2006 is taking the michael. They must have built it for themselves with no mortgage for 10 years?
I'm quite pragmatic about these things but I'm not sure I'd be happy buying it without some serious checks and balances carried out now.
The indemnity amount needs increasing from £200k, obviously. To an amount more than you are purchasing for to cover any rise in price.Everything that is supposed to be in heaven is already here on earth.
0 -
Doozergirl wrote: »A whole house with no building control approval?
I promote pragmatism, but having no BCA on a brand new house in 2006 is taking the michael. They must have built it for themselves with no mortgage for 10 years?
I'm quite pragmatic about these things but I'm not sure I'd be happy buying it without some serious checks and balances carried out now.
The indemnity amount needs increasing from £200k, obviously. To an amount more than you are purchasing for to cover any rise in price.
Agree it is strange that it had no building control and something we have stated needs sorting before we proceed. They have an insurance for this but I don't want issue when/if we sell it in the future. It was built by a reputable local builder and I can see there is a mortgage on the property.
Is it down to the person taking out the mortgage responsibility to inform 're mortgage company of the lack of building control?0 -
You need to get prepared for when the vendor turns around in a few weeks time and says that they won't/can't get BR sign-off. Personally I would definitely walk away now and not even wait for this - I would definitely never accept indemnity insurance against this if they offer it.
I can't think of any acceptable reason why a 12 yr old house wouldn't have sign-off, particularly if it's a supposedly reputable builder. The only job I've worked on that had this was the director's own house, and he cut so many corners to save money that it could never get sign-off.
New builds are generally poor quality construction, and we generally rely on BR to force builders to do the basics properly - if this checking system hasn't been followed then you just don't know what is there.0 -
You need to get prepared for when the vendor turns around in a few weeks time and says that they won't/can't get BR sign-off. Personally I would definitely walk away now and not even wait for this - I would definitely never accept indemnity insurance against this if they offer it.
I can't think of any acceptable reason why a 12 yr old house wouldn't have sign-off, particularly if it's a supposedly reputable builder. The only job I've worked on that had this was the director's own house, and he cut so many corners to save money that it could never get sign-off.
New builds are generally poor quality construction, and we generally rely on BR to force builders to do the basics properly - if this checking system hasn't been followed then you just don't know what is there.
Thanks for the reply. The more i read the more concern we feel. We don't mind waiting to see if they can get building regs. We are buying from a neighbour so know the house and how it's been over years etc. To us it all appears in excellent order which then brings back the question why wasn't it signed off.0 -
Sorry for another silly question in relation to the covenant.
Am I right that the only people that can contest the house being there are the vendor named on the conveyance which was a building company from Birmingham and dated 2979, or their successor in title. Are the successor in title those that own properties on the estate?0 -
No building regs on a 2006 house, that's actually amazing they got away with that!
Wouldn't even be considering it, reputable builder or not.0 -
the_r_sole wrote: »No building regs on a 2006 house, that's actually amazing they got away with that!
Wouldn't even be considering it, reputable builder or not.
Not even with with retrospective planning regs?0 -
Not even with with retrospective planning regs?
Not for me, have seen enough bad work covered up or hidden from inspections over the years to be worried when no inspection has ever been done and no permission ever sought.
Retrospective regs can be quite difficult to achieve and can involve a fair bit of opening up so the seller might not want to go down that route. Certainly a huge amount of work and expense compared to indemnity policies0 -
the_r_sole wrote: »Not for me, have seen enough bad work covered up or hidden from inspections over the years to be worried when no inspection has ever been done and no permission ever sought.
Retrospective regs can be quite difficult to achieve and can involve a fair bit of opening up so the seller might not want to go down that route. Certainly a huge amount of work and expense compared to indemnity policies
We will see. They are our neighbours and they have just returned from a break so will see what they say. Without it they will struggle to sell due most people needing mortgages.
Would anyone re- negotiate on the price?0 -
Going back through the emails from the solicitor it appears just the completion certificate is missing. It may be the case of that various stages were signed off but not the completion0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards