Building Regs (or lack of)

[FManc]

Hi. Currently purchasing a property which has been refurbished by the current vendors. The work they carried out hasn’t got building regulations as they didn’t realise they needed it. We had a full building survey carried out and when we spoke to the surveyor for his advice he basically said we need to push for retrospective building regs/regularisation due to the nature of works carried out. The main work was the removal of a load bearing wall which also includes a new beam and a concrete pad in the sub floor area (the surveyor initially wasn’t sure if the concrete pad was a previous repair or if it was work carried out when the wall was knocked down). The vendors confirmed that the pad provides a solid concrete base for the new column to support the weight of the new beam.

What’s our option if they aren’t interested in getting retrospective building regs?

In theory we can accept it as it is and get an indemnity policy but I guess that only protects us against council enforcement but not any structural issues. Also, I’m sure the issue would crop up again if we came to resell (though we intend to stay there long term).

The other option is pull out. Anything else I’m missing? Finding it all quite stressful as we love the house but at the same time need to remain quite levelheaded.

For this level of work an Indemnity policy definitely won’t cut it
If they won’t get retrospective consent I would walk away

Yeah I think we’re leaning that way tbh if they won’t get retrospective consent. It’s so frustrating as there’s not much coming onto the market now and we’ll probably miss the stamp duty saving.

agree you need to walk away if they won't sort out retrospective regularisation.

I did buy a house once with a fairly simple change that needed retrospective regularisation, and I was happy to proceed because there wasn't anything involving load-bearing walls and I sorted out the retrospective regularisation myself. however in your case the changes are much more significant and if something isn't up to scratch it could be very expensive to sort out, you cannot just buy the house and hope for the best in these circumstances.

We didn't find it that hard to get retrospective building regs for a bit of structural work but then had taken lots of photos during the works. If they're not happy to try for it then I'd have concerns over why, do they think it wouldn't pass?

The indemnity policy lasts for the life of the house and will cover you in the highly unlikely event that regs are not granted because the work is substandard. If the work was carried out to standard it really shouldn't be a problem. Did your surveyor think the work was of a good standard?

You could always get it checked and if it's fine, then just go ahead.

It's not easy to find a house you love, and buying/selling legals often throw up problems which are really a non-issue.

The seller usually pays for the indemnity policy.

@DeeplyMovingExperience I was under the impression that the indemnity policy only covers us for council enforcement but normally so much time has elapsed that they can't really enforce anything anyway.

Our building survey says....“Structural movement was noted, in the form of considerable settlement to the wall partitions. Door openings to both ground and first floor are noticeably out of square. During the course of our inspection within the sub-floor, we did note that a structural repair has been carried out in the past. A concrete pad and concrete blockwork have been formed to the rear left hand corner of the hallway area below the original partition between the dining room and kitchen. At first floor, the bedroom 2 door opening is particularly out of square. Works may, possibly, have been undertaken in conjunction with the knock through between the dining room and kitchen. It is assumed, given the structural element of the repair, that works were specified and monitored by a consulting Structural Engineer. On that basis, it is further assumed that Engineer’s also assessed the extent of deflection to the wall partition between the lounge and hallway area. All documentation associated with the repairs should be obtained by your Legal Advisers during the course of pre-contract enquiries. The documentation should also be referred back to the Surveyors for further advice. There was no evidence of any further, more recent untoward cracking around the heads of the door openings and no further investigations or immediate repairs are considered necessary”.

There are 2 issues really- the issue of formal consent, and the issue of whether the work has been done properly in the first place. With a survey like that I wouId be concerned about both. If you love the house I would ask them to pay for you to get a structural engineer to investigate and see what they say. If they say it’s ok then it is likely that you could get building control sign off and be reassured that the house isn’t going to fall down. Or if you love the house you could work out how much it would cost essentially to do it again, and either ask for a discount or take the hit (offset against the stamp duty) and redo it if you can’t be sure that what’s there is acceptable.

Our house had a wall removed without bR consent by vendors. There was no sign of any problem and they had the calcs for the steel and photos of it being installed, and obtained retrospective consent without opening up etc. OTOH your situation sounds very dodgy given movement, the pad is likely undersized,, I would proceed with caution tbh. Budget to have it rebuilt or repaired if possible.

I'd definitely follow up with a request for additional structural advice from the time (of which there may be none) and would look at getting an engineer round to see if it had been done properly. I'd also be asking for a discount for any remedial works needed.

Indemnity insurance is not a substitute for consent
It can be an option for a minor work from many years ago but I would never accept it in these circumstances

Thanks for all the replies so far. It’s reassuring to see we’re not acting over the top by pushing for further investigation/regularisation. We’ve not had the searches back yet but imagine it’d have cropped up then anyway.

The vendors have been very cooperative during the process so far and have provided evidence of the structural engineer calculations and diagrams for the work (this company seem to have gone into liquidation now tho). I guess our main concern is without building regs we have no idea if the work has been done to that spec (or if even the spec was correct in the first place). Bare in mind this work was only carried out 4 years ago; I guess if it was years and years ago it might be a different story. Also, we have no idea if this would affect any building insurance policy as well.

I'd ask them for a accredited structural engineers report surveying the work to date and giving advise if further works are required to stabilise the building. Structural movement is a huge red flag for insurance and mortgage lenders and the report would need to prove it's historical and not active movement as well as clarify if the repairs are up to standard.

I just don’t understand why people do this. Whoever carried out the works should have told the owners they needed building regulations sign off. Why spend a fortune and not get the relevant buildings regulations? If you really want this house you need the structural engineers to investigate fully and then if ok obtain retrospective buildings regulations sign off. The vendor is going to be in this position whether they sell to you or the next person. Every solicitor and mortgage company is going to require this.
A house near to me had similar issues and took nearly two years to sell as the vendor just refused to get the relevant sign off and there were issues. We viewed the house when we were looking to buy but whilst it was a great house I could see the problems attached with the lack of sign off on a huge load bearing wall and It’s a major red flag issue from me. We now have a house that was extended but fully compliant with all regulations.

I think in lots of cases the owner is not aware of requirements when they get work done and they trust that the contractor will advise them. Some contractors do, others aren't quite so scrupulous.

Yeah I appreciate the responsibility ultimately falls on the homeowner to get the appropriate sign off, but it’s definitely unprofessional for the builders not to even mention it. In our case it’s a “forever” house so we need to be certain things have been done properly. We don’t want to pull out but if they don’t budge or don’t appreciate the seriousness then we will have to. We broke our chain months ago and went into rented so we haven’t got a time pressure necessarily (tho we would like to benefit from the stamp duty saving).

I pulled out at quite a late stage after discovering that although Building Regs for a back extension had been applied for they had never been signed off. The sellers bought indemnity insurance but even so I was very unhappy. The extension wasn't tied in properly and was moving away from the house and also the seller refused to discuss why there was no sign off. My solicitor also dropped huge hints that the purchase may not be a good idea.

Fortunately I found my new home within a week and have been scrupulous about getting the right approvals for work I have had done.

Thanks everyone! We ended up pulling out today. The vendors weren’t willing to go for retrospective building regs (just an indemnity policy).

Probably a good choice.
If they "didn't know" they needed building regs imagine what else they might have "not known". They are either very dim, their builder is very dim or someone was lying to you. As well as potentially compromising your safety, it would have been harder for you to sell.

@FManc good to see it’s all sorted! I was going to say it’s a big red flag that the structural firm is now insolvent. Aside from the recent impact of corona the construction industry has been doing well. If I’d heard a company had gone bust I’d wonder if it was because of a claim against their insurance.

We’re absolutely gutted tbh as it was by far the best house we’d seen as it had everything we wanted and more BUT we just couldn’t take the risk. Our solicitor mentioned that building insurance companies would find any excuse not to pay out which was the final nail in the coffin for us.

You’ve done the right thing and they have not. The next prospective purchaser will be up against the exact same situation and will then have to pull out.
They must be incredibly stupid to not realise they need retrospective buildings regulations sign off. Or what are they trying to hide.
Another house will come along for you that will be better in the long run. Really this was the only possible outcome under the circumstances.

I really don't get the vendors, building regs should have been in the hundreds of pounds.

I think you made a good call in pulling out.
In most circumstances I wouldn't really mind that no building regs is in place - for a full rewire lacking any signoff for example, it's easy to have it inspected retrospectively to give yourself peace of mind. Even a basic kitchen extension it's not the end of the world
But massive structural changes, out of square doors, pillars with potentially no foundations - no thanks lol.

So update again. We had a call this morning and the vendors have changed their mind and have offered to get full building regs and put right any work that doesn’t meet regs.

Interesting! I think that shows the value of being prepared to walk away - sometimes it is only once you turn your back and say "bye" that they get the message that you are actually serious.