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.Buying property - historic removal of internal wall causing problems
JayZed
Posts: 731 Forumite
I am buying a house and was due to exchange tomorrow, but everything’s now up in the air. The lender is refusing to proceed because there is no evidence of building regs for an internal load-bearing wall that was removed at some point in the twentieth century. I’m absolutely livid because we have been consistently advised that this wouldn’t be a problem.
We received our mortgage offer about six weeks ago, and a mortgage valuation inspection was undertaken at the time. The mortgage valuation noted that an internal load-bearing wall had been removed (although this was not noted on the homebuyers survey that we obtained around the same time.).
Our vendors (who have been in the property about 20 years) did not know when the relevant wall had been removed, and our solicitor was not able to find any evidence of building regs approval on the council’s online register (but that only goes back 10 years or so). So it looks likely that the wall was removed at least 20 years ago (and quite possibly 30 or 40 years ago), and we don’t know whether there was building regs approval.
Our solicitor obtained a building regs indemnity policy (which obviously doesn’t cover structural defect risks per se, but covers the risk of the council requiring work to be put right). This was provided to our lender for approval more than two weeks ago. Our solicitor has repeatedly assured us repeatedly that this is all that the lender (HSBC) would require, and that the lender’s acceptance of this would be a formality and there was no risk of their not accepting it.
Now, on the eve of exchange, HSBC have come back and said that building regs indemnity is not sufficient to cover the risk of any structural defects in the work done, and that they require either evidence of building regs or a structural engineer’s survey to be undertaken to confirm that the work is sound.
Our solicitor claims to be gobsmacked and says that she has never know a lender to require this in this kind of situation before. She is planning to call the council tomorrow to enquire what historical record there is of building regs being granted for the property, although knowing this council it could take them a week or more to come back to her - and if we do need to get a structural survey that will take longer still.
I have a few questions:
1) Is the position being taken by the lender highly unusual, as our solicitor claims?
2) Based on the limited details above, does is sound as though we have been well advised by our solicitor? I accept that it’s not possible to give a definitive view on that based on a short Internet forum post.
3) Is there any risk that by contacting the council our solicitor could invalidate any buildings regs indemnity policy that we do end up taking out? Our solicitor says there’s no risk as long as she only asks general questions about what building regs have been granted and doesn’t ask specifically about the removal of an internal wall, but I’m nervous about this.
4) If our solicitor can’t find any evidence of building regs, I can’t really see any option other than to get a structural survey done, which frankly seems absurd and disproportionate. Any ideas for any alternative approaches (short of looking for a new mortgage deal)?
We received our mortgage offer about six weeks ago, and a mortgage valuation inspection was undertaken at the time. The mortgage valuation noted that an internal load-bearing wall had been removed (although this was not noted on the homebuyers survey that we obtained around the same time.).
Our vendors (who have been in the property about 20 years) did not know when the relevant wall had been removed, and our solicitor was not able to find any evidence of building regs approval on the council’s online register (but that only goes back 10 years or so). So it looks likely that the wall was removed at least 20 years ago (and quite possibly 30 or 40 years ago), and we don’t know whether there was building regs approval.
Our solicitor obtained a building regs indemnity policy (which obviously doesn’t cover structural defect risks per se, but covers the risk of the council requiring work to be put right). This was provided to our lender for approval more than two weeks ago. Our solicitor has repeatedly assured us repeatedly that this is all that the lender (HSBC) would require, and that the lender’s acceptance of this would be a formality and there was no risk of their not accepting it.
Now, on the eve of exchange, HSBC have come back and said that building regs indemnity is not sufficient to cover the risk of any structural defects in the work done, and that they require either evidence of building regs or a structural engineer’s survey to be undertaken to confirm that the work is sound.
Our solicitor claims to be gobsmacked and says that she has never know a lender to require this in this kind of situation before. She is planning to call the council tomorrow to enquire what historical record there is of building regs being granted for the property, although knowing this council it could take them a week or more to come back to her - and if we do need to get a structural survey that will take longer still.
I have a few questions:
1) Is the position being taken by the lender highly unusual, as our solicitor claims?
2) Based on the limited details above, does is sound as though we have been well advised by our solicitor? I accept that it’s not possible to give a definitive view on that based on a short Internet forum post.
3) Is there any risk that by contacting the council our solicitor could invalidate any buildings regs indemnity policy that we do end up taking out? Our solicitor says there’s no risk as long as she only asks general questions about what building regs have been granted and doesn’t ask specifically about the removal of an internal wall, but I’m nervous about this.
4) If our solicitor can’t find any evidence of building regs, I can’t really see any option other than to get a structural survey done, which frankly seems absurd and disproportionate. Any ideas for any alternative approaches (short of looking for a new mortgage deal)?
0
Comments
-
I think you are cross at the wrong people.
Why are you worrying more about the mortgage and not the structral integrity of the building?
Do you know what the wall was replaced with?
This is the sellers problem TBH not yours and I would be asking them for a discount to the amount of the report required.2021 GC £1365.71/ £24000 -
Get the structural survey organised ASAP.
It's a shame it has come up now rather than earlier on but assuming nothing untoward is found then it'll be much more helpful to you living in the property for the years to come than an indemnity policy which is totally useless.0 -
If it's 30 years old and hasn't fallen down then it doesn't seem like there's a huge risk! Lenders and solicitors seem pretty awful at understanding the significant things in alterations and permissions, it's the blind leading the blind usually...
If the council are contacted you, indemnity insurance becomes impossible but it's absolutely pointless too!
In your case I would just get the structural report done asap and move on, it's not a huge cost, engineers that we work with charge about a half day to inspect a single element like that and give you a report saying it's fine0 -
Get the structural survey organised ASAP.
It's a shame it has come up now rather than earlier on but assuming nothing untoward is found then it'll be much more helpful to you living in the property for the years to come than an indemnity policy which is totally useless.
I have heard of collapsing ceilings due to inadequate support during alterations - rare....but it has happened to a few people.
I bet it's a Victorian terrace house and the wall got removed between the two reception rooms?? If so - that's exactly what my last house was like when I bought it. As far as I could make out there was adequate support - sort of "pillars" each side of where the original wall started. Not a word got said by my surveyor - or anyone else.
What I chose to do subsequently myself was to put the wall back up again that had been there between the 2 rooms - as I didnt want the "through lounge" the house had instead.
Point being - it was no problem and very low cost to put that wall back up again. There were two possible ways to do it - 1. a plasterboard wall. 2. those large concrete blocks.
Either way - it would then need replastering.
I chose the concrete blocks option and my father did it for me and then replastered. We re-wallpapered. Job done and it really didnt take long at all or much money at all (though it obviously helps if one doesnt have to pay for the labour).
So - I'm wondering if an alternative way of looking at this would be for you to decide to put the wall back up again and sign a letter to the effect that you promised to do so??
*******
If you didnt actually want the wall - then you'd have "bought time" to get a suitable survey of the situation done by an expert. If said expert said everything was fine = no problem and don't bother to do the wall after all. If said expert said there is a problem = do the wall.0 -
I!!!8217;m not concerned about the structural integrity of the building. This wall was removed at least 20 years ago, and there are no signs of any structural problems. I!!!8217;m willing to get a structural survey to keep the lender happy, but the delay that this will cause is going to be problematic for us for a variety of reasons, which is why I!!!8217;m livid that this is being requested now rather than six weeks ago.
Our solicitor has repeatedly said that this is not something that any lender would have concerns about, and is now saying that she!!!8217;s never known a lender to ask for this before, so what I!!!8217;m trying to understand is whether this is an unusual situation or not. If it is, then why is the lender taking this approach? If it isn!!!8217;t, then why were we advised that this wasn!!!8217;t an issue and that an indemnity policy would be sufficient?0 -
Sorry, don!!!8217;t know why my apostrophes are coming out like that.0
-
How do you know 100% it was done 20 years ago? Just curious.2021 GC £1365.71/ £24000
-
We know it had already been removed when our vendors bought it (unless they are lying, and we have no reason to think that is the case). Also we know that a conservatory was added to the rear of the house in 1995, and the layout means that it is very unlikely that the wall was there when the conservatory was added - although it could conceivably have been removed at the same time that the conservatory was added.0
-
BrassicWoman wrote: »How do you know 100% it was done 20 years ago? Just curious.
Because the sellers say so. And what reason would the sellers have to bend the truth a little? Hmmm.0 -
We know it had already been removed when our vendors bought it (unless they are lying, and we have no reason to think that is the case).
This is the single most expensive thing you will ever buy, from someone you may not have even met, or have met for an hour?
I know it is frustrating... I persoanally couldn't sleep without having had an expert look it over though!2021 GC £1365.71/ £24000
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards