What is the point of building control?

[Bearbehind]

Inspired by another thread- . If you make changes to your property without building control - what's the worst that can happen?

It seems the main issue is when you come to sell but you can the jst buy an indemnity.

In what circumstances would the indemnity be invoked?

How do they find out what you've done?

What can they do about it?

Are there timelines after which they can't do anything?

They provide an independent check that changes you are making have been done safely. E.g. We were taking out a supporting wall so they checked it was done safely and was not going to disturb the security of the upstairs floors above. They provide independent advice that what your builder is doing and advising is adequate.
You may get an indemnity policy for some things, but not all (!) (there seems to be lots of threads on MN that you can get indemnity for anything and you can't) but they cost money and might put off loads of buyers in the future thus you may have to discount sales price. We have done building work in loads of different council areas and without exception building control been quick and efficient. Decent builders know the local BC departments and are happy to work with them. I do not work for a council nor am
I on commission 😀

You can be prosecuted, as a general rule, within 2 years.

Indemnities are only suitable for minor works like a knock through.

Not having building regs can be a big problem when you come to sell.

Any reputable builder will not do notifiable work without building control.

I'm sure there are plenty of ways to hide dodgy work from building control but at the end of the day is it not in your interest to get independent confirmation that the work you've had done is safe? That your house isn't going to fall down?

I suppose councils can find out via nosy neighbours etc and if they do then they do have enforcement powers which although I believe are without time limit, they do have more powers within the first two years.

Plus as PPs have said, a reputable builder won't do notifiable work without building control meaning that if your builder won't then the work you are having done will almost certainly be shoddy. Building regulations are there for your own safety and that of your neighbours, not to be an annoyance.

Indemnities aren't always possible. We saw a house which came back on the market after a sale fall through. The agent told us while we went to view that it was because the extension on the back had no BC sign off. It was pretty obvious because the work meant the living room had no windows! We walked away and the house is still up for sale three months later because no one will touch it.

We nearly lost a sale because building control hadn't signed off (unknown to us) on some work and our buyers' solicitors/mortgage company, I forget which, wouldn't accept an indemnity policy. Indemnity policies are not always possible.

We also nearly pulled out of a purchase the day before exchange after it was discovered that the two storey extension on the back of our house had not been signed off by BC. No way was I moving into a house with a potentially unsafe two storey extension.

In both cases BC signed off on it after some inspections/discussions and we were able to proceed knowing that no houses were going to fall on anyone's heads. Personally, I like that BC exists and have always found them very helpful!

Thanks for the replies.

I guess I read too many 'just get an indemnity threads on here'!

It does seem a little odd nothing can be done after 2 years yet it's still a problem when you sell though?

It's usually a problem when you come to sell because lenders don't want to give people money to buy a house that might fall down. An indemnity will only cover you for the council trying to enforce building regs, it won't pay for shite quality building work to be corrected.

Isn't lot of it about the rules at the time though?

I get the structural stuff but some things seem madness.

We looked at buying a 3 storey house and got quotes for putting a door into a non-load bearing wall and was told it couldnt be done because it was too close to the stairs, even though there was a door on the floor above in the exact same place, so the same distance from the stairs.

I also still don't understand how this stuff gets enforced- if nothing can be done after 2 years what is the problem?

When you buy a house, it's really the mortgage company buying the house so they need to be happy they aren't buying a lemon (and your solicitor acts for them).

I think I'd want building controls. And I suspect the mortgage company may be similarly minded.

It's confirmation the work has been done to a decent standard. The indemnity only covers the potential loss in value to the house. That may not be the same as the cost of work needed to put right any problems. We are buying a house where new bathrooms (en suite and under stairs loo) were installed without building control and even I can see the work is shoddy. But it was more than 2 years ago so we know the LA won't take action and we plan to replace the bathrooms in time.

As I said, I get it for structural stuff or fire access things like loft conversions but I find it most odd wrt things like the position of a door when the floor above has one in exactly the same place.

Surely the original door, installed when the house was built fails regs just as much as a newly installed one?

In that case, all houses immediately become out of date as soon as they are built as today's houses won't meet the regs of one built 10 years ago let alone 100 years ago.

cycle what regs were needed for a new bathroom and ensuite?

Were they just replaced or repositioned?

I guess I'm wondering how on earth you even know what requires regs approval or not?

I've always assumed anything non structural was fine.

New drainage connections are notifiable, and new bathrooms require mechanical ventilation.

The building regulations cover so much more than structure. Look them up! No don't, they're very boring

"if nothing can be done after 2 years what is the problem?"
The problem comes when it falls down on your head before 2 years is up! Or you have mould or rotting timbers or draughts or drains that block or smell or all manner of common building defects.

Bear - the bathrooms were brand new (i.e. space taken from a bedroom for en suite and under stairs cupboard turned into a loo). Our building surveyor queried whether there had been building regs due to his assessment of the quality of the work.

Our buyers have also queried whether we got building control for our new driveway (like for like replacement) and we hadn't because we didn't know we should. But actually since 2008 you are supposed to. I think our workman should have known and told us but it's too late for that now.

It's stuff like that that baffles me cycle; why do you need building regs to replace a driveway like for like?

it's not structural - what could go wrong?

Driveways need drainage now so that when you get heavy rains the water doesn't sit on the surface and cause flooding. Didn't matter so much years ago but now that pretty much everyone wants to replace their front gardens with paved drives it is becoming more of an issue.

Actually it is not usual for a drive to require BR approval. If steps are added or there is a change in materials, BR may be needed.

BR reflects the latest requirements in minimum standards. They do not mirtor standards of 150 years ago or even 20 years ago in some cases. Minimum standards are reviewed so what is built years ago does not meet requirements now. This only matters if you are changing something (e.g. Stairs, loft) or building an extension.

The materials used for a drive must be good enough for the use of the drive and you also need permission to drop a kerb.

Are they getting confused? Driveways can need planning permission because of drainage runoff - theoretically if you paved over part of your garden it would run off faster into the local drainage, if everyone does this in some areas it can increase flood risk.

The building regulations apply to new work. Loads of existing houses have structure, ventilation etc. that doesn't conform to the current regs, but if you put in something new or make a substantial change, the changed bit should meet regs. Likewise if it was done 5 years ago it should comply with the regs as they were in 2012. They are (rightly) very strict on fire escapes, structural safety etc.

I would not buy a house that had substantial alterations (i.e. involving a builder) without Building regs approval. A builder that careless may have cut quite a lot of other corners too which would be invisible when covered up.

The worst that can happen is your house falls down, traps you in a fire, floods you with sewage, gets damp or rots, the dodgy electrics catch fire... it gets subsidence.... I mean it's not minor stuff.

you can read the Approved Documents here and very interesting they are too! A builder or your BC officer should guide you but it's the home owner's duty in the end.

We have had very bad experiences with Building Control. We extended into the loft a few years ago, going from a 2 storey house to a 3. Lots of requirements about self-closing fire doors etc etc etc. OUr builder and project manager was on top of everything but the service we received from the local council was appalling. They never turned up when they said they would. Never returned phonecalls. Emails unread. Eventually managed to get them out to sign off work and they made a complaint about the velux windows being too high - the building control inspector was telling me that the velux windows onto a steeply sloping roof 35 feet up were a perfectly safe escape route. Total bollocks and not regulations at all.

The problem with Building Control is that it's a monopoly - if you don't like the crappy service you're getting from one Council, you can't use Building Control inspectors working privately or with another Council. So they can do things as slowly as they want, never return a call and there's fuck all you can do about it. They're quick enough to take your money though.

""The problem with Building Control is that it's a monopoly - if you don't like the crappy service you're getting from one Council, you can't use Building Control inspectors working privately or with another Council. So they can do things as slowly as they want, never return a call and there's fuck all you can do about it. They're quick enough to take your money though.""
Not sure who told you that, you can use any approved inspector, which includes many local authorities (from other areas). Usually costs a bit more but they're likely to be more flexible. The building regs describe outcomes of safety, structure, economy and environment etc, but not how to achieve that. The approved documents give an example how to achieve that and your friendly approved inspector is more likely to let you comply in another way.

We were told this wasn't possible - we're in Scotland though so quite possibly the system is different.

Bojorojo and NotMeNoNo - google suggests you're right thank you. I am probably confused myself! It wasn't a new driveway, literally replacement.

Sorry yes no idea about Scotland! Maybe this is somewhere that privatisation/competition has actually worked out well...

Our local building control made us do unexpected work during a job, we weren't happy about the extra cost but they were absolutely right. Work had previously been done that basically had to be rectified and we're now shored up against a very possible subsidence. If the wall (and front of the house) had gone down our insurers wouldn't have paid up as the original work should have been signed off but wasn't.