Sellers have no Building Regs - help!

[doglover]

We've been informed that our sellers have not got the final certificates after extending their property in 2002. They'll need to get the Building Inspector back to inspect the work and get it signed off. We know that there is an issue with an internal garage door which means our lender will not lend us the money. I hope we'll get more information tomorrow but had anyone else experienced something like this?

I am in the same situation - i.e. un-regulated extension. I am negotiating with the vendors to bring in an independent surveyor to inspect and report on what work would need to be done to get retrospective sign-off. They're wary about going straight to the council, I guess because if a lot of work needs doing, I could walk away, and they'd be left with a big bill for work that the council could insist on them doing.

A lot of people aren't bothered about BRs, but I am, because my solicitor's advice is that an unregulated extension may mean you don't get a mortgage, and will mean problems with your insurance - household buildings insurance will not cover unregulated extensions, so if there are any problems with it (it falls down, burns down, etc.) insurance won't pay out.

Once we've got the report, I reckon we can go one of three ways: (a) they do the work and I increase my existing (lowish) offer; (b) they don't do the work and I keep my offer low to cover the costs/risks/effort of regularisation myself; or (c) I walk away.

I had to deal with this for our last two house purchases. Both times I said I wouldn't proceed with the purchase until it had been sorted out at the vendor's expense. I think its cheeky to try and sell without them, to be honest - unless you're sure you're never going to sell your house (or you're doing a shoddy job on the cheap), why would you not want your work properly regulated?

I've been through this and we had to walk away as the two bedrooms in the loft were considered not habitual without BR. Solicitor strongly urged us to walk away as we may have problems selling it further down the line.

Thanks for the replies. It's so frustrating, isn't it. I feel, like you, DR, that the vendors need to sort out this issue before we can proceed with the transaction. We do love the property and am not sure that we'll find anything else acommodation-wise to suit our rather exacting requirements. There's NOTHING coming on the market here so I really do want this to go ahead.

Unfortunately retrospective BR can be a right pain in the bum to sort out especially if it includes drains, foundations or strengthening structural support (lift conversions). This is because they are covered up and hard to examine. It's also hard to get calculations to support there design.
It's far harder than retrospective planning permission but people often think it's no big deal until they come to sell.

We gave our seller the chance to sort out the loft conversion, he didn't even reply, the solicitor had to put a 48 hr time limit on him in the end and said we would pull out. He obviously had no intention of doing this, so we did pull out. It would have cost him a lot of money to sort out. I wonder now if he did ever sell it the estate agents were dodgy (although well respected and long standing) and made it clear, with all they knew, that they would still try to sell as a the bed and unless it got flagged up by good solicitor they would not mention to buyers.

Mind you, I don't think our solicitor, without seeing property, would have realised had WE not flagged up it simply because it said in survey check building regs on loft conversion and extension, so we set our solicitor on to it. We opened the can of worms so to speak. If we'd had no survey, we would have been none the wiser.

Should have read 'three bed'.

On one hand, I'm glad that this isn't a rare issue: on the other hand, it's horrible to hear that sales have been lost because of it.

It's a nightmare.

I tried to sell but the buyers asked questions that turned up issues about listed building consent from 20yrs ago. They wouldn't accept indemnity insurance and pulled out in a huge huff.

I am waiting for the council to tell me what I can do about it, and pursuing my former solicitors who, it appears, didn't ask the right questions for my losses. Massive hassle.

Meanwhile I have most probably lost the house I was planning on buying.

We've had this before and the vendor had to purchase an insurance that would rectify it if it didn't pass planning or we were ever told to rip it down and rebuild, it was an attic conversion and a kitchen extension. We bought the house to let, we've never had any problems 6 years on.

Well, it looks like we'll have to wait to see what the solicitor comes back with .......................

For me, indemnity insurance is a red herring, and certainly not a solution. For a start, there are time limits on some aspects of building regs and planning, after which a council can't take action - so many people pay for insurance to protect themselves from a risk that has in fact passed.

But more importantly, indemnity insurance only protects you from enforcement action, not actual problems. So it will cover you if the council comes along and tells you to make changes, but it won't cover you if the extension or conversion has structural problems and cracks appear, it falls down, etc... And what's more, your 'normal' household building insurance won't cover you either, because unregulated/unapproved work is excluded.

So if you buy a house with an unregulated attic, and it turns out the floor isn't strong enough and the ceiling below collapses - you're not covered. Or if the unregulated extension has subsidence or develops cracks, or even if it collapses and damages next door as it falls - you're not covered. Or a fire starts there and spreads to the rest of the house because it has no separating doors - you're not covered. :(

I don't think vendors are always being cheeky or trying to pull a fast one - I think many people just don't realise the significance of building regs.

I'm in a similar position property has a rear extension that shows up with planning thirty years ago but no building regs. My solicitor has confirmed what's been said about indemnity insurance but I didn't know that buildings insurance won't cover it either. I was hoping to convince the seller to get a surveyor I to confirm its not going to fall down etc but how do you resolve the insurance problem?

I guess some people are comfortable with more risk than others. My solicitor said that insurance companies don't automatically ask about building regs when you take out a policy, so many people just assume they are covered - if they think about it at all. But if you ever have a problem and need to make a claim, the insurance co will then ask/check, and will refuse your claim if the works should have had BR approval but haven't got it.

I think the only way to resolve it is to apply for retrospective building regs approval, even if that means doing work to bring it up to scratch.

Personally, I'd make an exception for BR requirements that carried no risk - e.g. glass that wasn't up to environmental standards - but I would (and will) insist on sorting anything structural that might carry any risk at all.

Our house didn't have when we bought it. The alterations were out of the enforcement period (loft conversion) and we had a survey to check joists etc were safe. Our solicitor was completely relaxed about it and said it was very common

It depends a bit on what's missing in the building regs. My house had no final sign off but all the interim inspections had been done. Went ahead at seller's cost, now have final regs and a new fan in the upstairs bathroom.

I've been digging online since my last post and have found out that prior to 1985 building regs were not required which explains why there aren't any in my case. If the work was done after Nov 1986 the seller can apply for regularisation which is basically retrospective building regs approval. They may be asked to open up some of the structure and it can take about 8 weeks.

parey the problem with our specific case was that even though it had been done by here say before 1985 according to neighbours (all the cottages were the same) as there was no paper work officially proving when it had been done, this knowledge it was still, frustratingly, useless. The building reg issue with this property was particularly bad though as two bedrooms were in loft in a three bedroom house. Legally it wasn't a three bed house though and obviously people sell houses on how many beds it has as key selling feature.

push our solicitor also said it was very common, but she also strongly advised we didn't buy it but we were in unique situation about bedroom count.

We had this with the house we bought in January. DH is also a building inspector. I would say if they applied for BR and just didn't get final sign off, then just ask them to sort it before proceeding. If on the other hand they went ahead without any BR application then I would probably walk away as BR may insist on exposing various parts in order to get it completed. And if for example something like the foundations are not right then they will never get it signed off.
Getting a surveyor of your choice round there is probably a good idea of this house is the one for you.

Gosh, this all sounds horrible. I suppose we'll find out more next week.