Sellers forcing us to buy without building regs

[Velvetpine]

DP and I (we have one DC) have been trying to buy a house for a few months. The sellers did an attic conversation with an office/bedroom and a bathroom in the loft. They didn’t get any drawings done at the time of converting, no building regs, and didn’t get the permitted development part signed off either - literally nothing. They’re trying to push us to accept indemnity insurance but it’s not clear whether our mortgage lender would accept this, and even so there could be potential safety and fire hazards if it wasn’t done properly. It was done 6 years ago. Our surveyor and solicitor suggest indemnity insurance wouldn’t be good enough.

The work from what we can see was done well so maybe it’s fine, but we don’t want to take the risk and we might also have problems selling ourselves down the line without retrospective permission being sought. I love the house so feeling gutted.

Has anyone else been in this position and what did you do?

Your solicitor is giving you legal advice so I’d take it. Is it really worth such an awful risk?

Your seller needs to accept that if they lose you as buyers, they will only come across the same problem with the next buyers! No solicitor will advise that this is ok.

edited to add - do not buy without the building regs!

The seller can’t force you to do anything! They can say they won’t go about getting retrospective consent (if that would be possible) and will offer indemnity insurance instead. It’s up to you if you take that (I wouldn’t) or walk away.

How will you even relax with your literal ceiling at risk of falling in? You need to listen to your conveyancer on this I’d say.
Maybe indemnity would suffice for a conservatory/extension/outbuilding etc. but really not sure about the very roof over your head if I’m honest.

The seller is not forcing anything, they can't.

Your solicitor is advising indemnity isn't good enough.

You withdraw.

Follow your solicitor's advice. You need to ask them and check - but I think indemnity insurance covers the cost of claiming against the seller if the council decide to enforce planning regs and you need to get planning permission. The insurance won't cover the cost of making right, if there is work needed to get that permission though, you'd have to pay those costs yourself.

I was in a similar situation some years back and walked away.

@Velvetpine I would be very surprised if your mortgage company will uphold their offer without Building Control sign off. We looked at buying a house a few years ago that had had a 2 storey garage extension. No building sign off. All looked OK, surveys came back OK but our mortgage company refused to honor their offer if we proceeded.

Ultimately a mortgage is a loan against the resale value of the house. Unfortunately without sign off the house cannot be considered as having had an attic conversion that is a habitable place. So if it was a 3 bedroom house and the conversion should make it a 4 bed then the mortgage company will only value it as a 3 bed and therefore will decline to loan on it because the asking price will be significantly higher than that of a 3 bedroom house.

Afaik, if you’re in England, you can walk away at any point up to the point of exchange of contracts.

Yes, you won’t get your legal fees back. If the estate agent misadvertised, you might get your money back that way. They’re not supposed to advertise anything without building regs approval as a ‘bedroom’ (not sure about just a ‘room’ though). We’ve been in a similar position, although in our case it turned out the majority of sleeping space was a conversion with no building regs certificate. We walked away and had to go to the Property Ombudsman to recover our losses. It was a long process but in the end we got the money back as the estate agent was found at fault.

If I were you I’d speak to your conveyancer, they’re best placed to advise you on the risks, especially that there might be mortgage implications too.

Indemnity insurance only covers enforcement by the council, not any other losses you might suffer if you proceed. Your conveyancer should have explained this?

Both the surveyor and conveyancer are telling you the same thing, I know why I’d do.

In many instances a solicitor would encourage indemnity insurance. We had it for a loft conversion and some new windows on houses we bought. Therefore, if your solicitor is saying it isn’t good enough I would certainly listen. It sounds like it is too extensive to be covered adequately.

Just walk away, the risk increases with the years. Beams settle and warp over time. Fastenings become loose and weaker.
Too much risk

Are retrospective building regs possible? (We once got retrospective planning consent for an outbuilding previous owners had put up).

I would walk away if I were you, there will be another house.

How long ago did they do the work? Recently, or 20 years or so ago?

Sorry to nitpick. But if something it permitted development then it means planning permission is not required. Therefore there is nothing to sign off.

The advice from your surveyor and solicitor on the building regs side of things should be a strong push for you to pull out though.

Sorry. Just saw 6 years ago.... I had a case recbwky where a wall had been taken out without building Reg's, we got the beams etc exposed and a structural engineer said it was all fine, the buyers are going to exchange with an indemnity and then get retrospective building Reg's. What the loft not done under permitted development, would it have needed planning? Can the company they used shed any light on the steels that were used etc FYI, I work in property. It is a bit stupid they only did the work 6 years ago and don't get it all signed off....

I had an issue with a garage conversion on my home when we bought it.

We ended up having to redo it as it wasnt waterproof so I would say no.

Bear in mind that they will get exactly the same with subsequent buyers so they will need to get it sorted unless its a cash buyer

I'm fairly certain we were in this position when we bought our current house. Attic had been converted in the 60s/70s and was never signed off. The owners died and the beneficiaries of the will had fallen out and we're point blank refusing to believe that the lack of conversion sign off was a problem. We really wanted the house so we paid for a professional to come (I believe it was a surveyor) and inspect and sign off the conversion retrospectively. This was in Scotland.

The normal thing would have been to walk away from the house and let the sellers find out that they would have the same problem with the next buyers but we sucked it up as we really, really wanted this particular house.

Run away, fast. This is not a scenario for indemnity insurance. Indemnity insurance is for when a situation is unclear or risk is uncertain. This is clearly an illegal and dangerous extension/conversion which cannot be indemnified.

They should be able to get retrospective building reg sign off IF it's done to the correct standard.

Amusingly the house we bought had three sets of extensions/conversions done over the years but all the building regs sign off were dated two weeks before it went on the market! They hadn't bothered to do it at the time!

Either they do that (which they'll have to pay for and organise, no idea of timelines) or walk away. It isn't worth the risk. The indemnity wouldn't cover
the cost of making good of there is a problem.

I would also walk away. As well as the uncertainty over whether it's structurally sound, the house may not meet fire regulations. For example if it's now a three storey home then the fire regulations require a protected staircase (i.e. the staircase isn't in an open plan living area) or the home may need sprinklers. Basically the escape route from the loft needs to be safe and prevent fire spreading. The doors coming off the main escape route (staircase) may need to be upgraded to meet higher standards than those needed in a two storey home.

And it would happen to most other buyer - a mortgage company is unlikely to accept this.

Their only chance of selling would be to a cash buyer who wasn't worried about the risk.

Going slightly against the grain here - the conversion may not have building regs but that doesn’t preclude you doing work to bring it up to the requisite standards and to get sign off I’m due course. If you really love the house get a structural survey and knock a fair amount off what you’ve offered, to cover the cost of bringing the work up to the appropriate standards.

My old house had a bit of a dodgy attic conversion, but the solicitor and mortgage accepted indemnity insurance was ok and I sold it on again and it was the same.

So, for yours to say indemnity insurance won’t cover this is a huge red flag, there must be real significant issues and I think you need to walk away. You’d only be saddling yourself with a future issue too, how would you ever sell it on in the future knowing this is the situation?

If they can’t get retrospective building sign off and indemnity insurance is a no go I think you need to pull out.

We’ve bought and sold over the years and got the odd indemnity in the process HOWEVER building regulations have tightened up massively and undertaking work without planning permission can result in a prison sentence. This deems the house a hot potato and a potential hazard/future expense. Tell them you’re happy to proceed once they have retrospective planning permission but have no choice but to pull out of the purchase

OP says 6 years.