Buying a place with loft conversion - doubt over building regs

[Doubtsandniggles3]

I began the conveyancing process for the purchase of a 3 bedroom property.

The property was priced, marketed, and advertised as a 3-bed place.

Had the survey done. Surveyor expressed some doubt regards building regulations compliance for the attic conversion (being used as and marketed as, a bedroom). Although he didn't wave a huge red flag at me re structure/safety, he did raise a compliance question mark.

After being alerted to this, I pushed to get to the bottom of it via solicitors - vendor and agent of course insisted it was regulated. Turns out - it was not originally built to building regulations standards for the time, and it also would manifestly not meet today's reg standards (although I appreciate many older buildings would not.) On this basis my solicitor said they would have to raise this with the bank and alert the bank to the fact the loft floor was not compliant with building regs standards.

Then, it turns out the prior owner had retrospectively applied for a certificate of regulation via the Council, and a certificate was produced.

However, the certificate seemed very inconclusive, very cursory, and left a lot of doubt. Looked like a quick tick box exercise. Further, I understand regs for lofts being used as a bedroom are more stringent as opposed to occasional use rooms/storage rooms. Likewise, the further from ground level, the more stringent re fire exit etc. Clearly, the loft room would have not met today's regulatory standards, floor height excluded that. However, I was not satisfied that the retrospective certificate was in any way adequate or sufficient. Place been on the market a long time - I had a niggle. Solicitor also not satisfied with the evidence provided to support regulatory status, and indicated lending may be an issue.

This is what was stated on the certification:

"This certificate only relates to the work described above (loft conversion) and confirms that the works have been regularised under the Building Regulations Act 2010. This should not be taken as an assurance that every part of the construction has been seen or monitored for compliance"

"This certificate is evidence (but not conclusive evidence) that the requirements specified have been complied with."

I have walked away from the purchase and pulled out on this basis. The evidence provided didn't give me faith or confidence, although some may argue it was in fact a certificate or regulation (of sorts).

Have I done the right thing in walking away?

My concern is - the certificate is paltry, and it doesn't provide any detail, and it doesn't provide any refeference to the conversion being suitable for bedroom use. My further concern is that I would be over paying for what is in fact a 2 bed "with loft storage, and a half ditched attempt at proving regulated status." Place was priced and marketed as a 3 bed. Concerned also about taking on the legacy of this and re-sale issues. It leaves a question mark and too much doubt in the air to be comfortable with.

Interested to hear views...

You have done the right thing to walk away, even if you had have continued with the purpose you would never felt truly Happy about it, living in the knowledge that future resale may be Problematic.

Latest Loft conversion Legislation requires improved levels of insulation, an opening Window either in the Gable end if there is one, or of a Velux type in the Roof, and large enough to provide a means of escape should ever a Fire break out.
The Floor has to be strengthened and extra supports installed to facilitate a weigh bearing load, it is simply not good enough just to place Floorboards over the rafters that were just designed to take the weight of the ceiling attached below them, plus any utility connections for Plumbing, Electrics, and a deep layer of insulation.
This normally reduces the available internal loft height by around 30cm Total all around, and can be a deal breaker on suitability for conversion if the original roof pitch angle is less than 40degrees, giving a low central ridge height. I suspect that this could be the problem in the case of this house you were considering buying, the strengthening had not taken place in order to gain internal Ceiling Height.

What the previous owner had actually created was a tarted up store room, not a space for long term regular habitational living!

@Doubtsandniggles3
You did the right thing

It looks fine to me. Building regs certs say similar.

I'm normally very much of the walk away mould but to be fair that is now a regular building control certificate. Mine says similar for an extension 3 years ago, just mine was completed at the time.

But you were not happy so you did the best thing for you

I would have sent it to the original surveyor and asked in what way did this affect their opinion in the chain text of what they saw.

Was it a full survey?

Our old house had an attic conversation that could only be described as an occasional room and didn’t have proper regs, we had an indemnity insurance on it when we bought and when we sold on.

I think where they’ve gone wrong is trying to market the house as three bed when really it’s two + the attic/occasional room, which in reality you can use how you like once you live there.

The regularisation certificate looks pretty standard to me. Obviously, as time moves on standards change and it’s only an indication it met the standards at the time it was issued.

I think you’ve missed a trick! My house was marketed as a 3 bedroom as the loft had been converted, but it only has a spiral staircase and no building regs cert. we knew this when we viewed it and the EA kept going on about 3 bedrooms during the viewing. I pointed out that actually it was only 2 bed and would not be compliant for 3 due to the staircase. We offered considerably less, had our offer centred and got indemnity insurance. We spent £5k having a compliant staircase put in and got a building regs certificate. That’s now increased the value by at least £20k!

@Soontobe60

I think you’ve missed a trick! My house was marketed as a 3 bedroom as the loft had been converted, but it only has a spiral staircase and no building regs cert. we knew this when we viewed it and the EA kept going on about 3 bedrooms during the viewing. I pointed out that actually it was only 2 bed and would not be compliant for 3 due to the staircase. We offered considerably less, had our offer centred and got indemnity insurance. We spent £5k having a compliant staircase put in and got a building regs certificate. That’s now increased the value by at least £20k!

I agree, many years ago we did a loft conversion, it's intended use was occasional room/office with a space saver staircase. The room was actually beautiful but when we sold we didn't market it as an extra, bedroom took out indemnity insurance and priced the house accordingly because it didn't comply. You would be within your rights to offer the equivalent price for a 2 bedroom house instead of 3 in that area if it ticks all the boxes and you really like it.

Honestly, I think you should have got professional specific advice on the paperwork, not from your solicitor who really isn't expert in such matters, but a planning consultant or architect or similar. It may well have been all that would have ever been issued given the circumstances, & perfectly acceptable.

But that aside it's always a good idea to listen to your gut/err on the side of caution anyway so you probably won't regret it :)

The house I'm in currently was marketed as a three bed but the attic has been converted to a high spec and was used as a bedroom by the previous owners, so could have been advertised as a four bed in your scenario.

As a PP mentioned, you could have knocked them down on price, get the relevant work done and then you'd increase the overall value of the house.

OP here..

Thanks for responses everyone, really useful, and as I expected quite a range.

The discomfort comes from the fact that there still appears to be doubt/a grey area and as the original poster said, due to the very limited room height, it wold be an extremely extensive job to get it up to regularised standard (would need planning to lift roof, or lower floor - massive job either way).

The other niggle is that if it had been marketed and priced as a 2 bed, and yes if there was a negotiation on price - I'd have considered moving ahead - but agent/vendor standing firm.

I've sent the cert to surveyor to get their view.

If we were in negotiating territory, this may have been different, but agent got pretty shirty with me. I appreciate that yes, there is a reg certificate and the wording is generic.. it's the discrepancy between the room and the reality of what a building reg compliant room looks like, and in an old, terraced, edwardian building the extensive works to get it regulated (not a stair case job but a roof/floor job) would not be worth it and may not even be viable or in line with the integrity of the structure... so then there's always future resale risk.

A regularisation certificate means it can be advertised as a 3 bed.

I would have either walked away or offered far less. Remember you will have similar issues one day when you sell...

Does the cert not need to specify that the conversion is suitable for bedroom use? The cert if very generalised and by its own admittance inconclusive - just seems to leave doubt

What options do you have? Can you realistically buy a 'proper' 3 bed property with 3 full size rooms (no loft conversion) for similar money? If you can only buy a 2 bed for this money than glorified storage that's done safely and is retrospectively compliant is a massive improvement on that.

Vendor's response depends on what options THEY have - and currently when there's nothing on the market they probably do have options so unlikely to be interested to negotiate the price down.

Not sure if it's inconclusive - obviously they have only inspected one thing and not the whole house (which there was no reason to inspect) - their whole charging model is based around that - so it might just be how they word things.

OP here (name change). All very good points.

I am starting to think:

• this is standard wording for a cert. The wording doesn't seem overly reassuring, but this appears generic, and they are covering the fact that they didn't rip walls out

• if it clearly wont meet standards of today, but did get retrospecive consent to meet standards of the time, maybe we are ok?

• as PP said, yes, this is all about options, and in most cases with property we have to take a "hit" - and it's just deciding where that hit is.

• have a niggle that something doesn't add up, place been on market for circa 10 months in an area that they fly off the shelf, and has had a chunky price reduction.

The first response was correct insofar as it would never meet today's standards. But there is a cert. However paltry it looked - maybe this is standard?

Thinking of getting a second opinion by way of loft conversion specialist.

As pp said, a retrospectively compliant loft conversion, that I know would meet today's standards, but gains me the space I need (and 3 bed "proper" rooms wouldn't be attainable in target area etc) may be the best I can do.

The niggle is that, (single parent/ 3 kids), this home is an interim one not a "forever" one - and I'd envisage moving on in say 5/6 years, and will this become problematic for resale... regulations change all the time and then it will be even less compliant by today's standards....

Very confusing. Its a question of knowing where the line is between a sensible, calculated "risk/hit" and where you're entering dodgy territory in terms of resellability....

The certificate is issued by the Council and is standard, so you are OK on that front.

The question is whether the work that has been done is satisfactory. This question applies to all building work done to a house, even where the relevant permissions were obtained at the time they were undertaken.

Thanks @savvy7

True. So, what I am trying to work out is that, despite and regardless of cert, a converted loft still may be problematic? And thus best to get a loft conversion specialist/structural specialist etc in?

Cert doesn't alone hold weight enough?

So, researching this further, it seems - the certificate albeit a retrospective consent doesn’t guarantee the integrity of the structure.

I think Im getting somewhere with this. The issue of ceiling height clearance is no small issue - and surveyor said it was 1.7 as opposed to the 2m that would make it compliant. He also raised a doubt relating to piping in eaves. But he was not a specialist structural engineer or loft specialist. Just verbally alerted me that I really must check this with my solicitor.

But from the simple matter of the ceiling height - it’s a fact that it couldn’t be made compliant - couldn’t magic up an additional 3cm headspace.

So the retrospective consent certificate - albeit valid for the time, potentially loses validity over them when regs change, and also is seemingly quite a cursory process (eg i’ve heard of building controls having a brief 5 mins once over).

So it’s not a question of vendors acting in bad faith or the cert being moot - more that I need a realistic appraisal of how the obvious non compliance to today’s standards would impact value / resellability (certificate dates to 2012).

And as PP said, certificate is not an indicator of structural integrity.

Getting a specialist in and getting hard evidence may give me grounds to chip on price and get extra space on a reappraisal of value. Or it may give me peace of mind that truly walking away is best.

this historic thread v informative on subject

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/property/4023868-Buying-Property-with-Loft-Conversion-and-No-Building-Regs

and I guess this exposes the limits of retrospective consents.

ideally - regulation takes place at time of build. They need to see the original structural calculations and see it at staged points throughout its construction.

retrospective consent leaves significant unknowns and a structural engineer to ascertain integrity of the workmanship / structure would need to pull the place apart / expose joists etc. so with retrospective consents seems we are working with unknowns.

there’s also the matter that over time as the property ages and regs change, the discrepancy between compliance and non compliance for the times becomes more glaring / less likely to be passed off by lenders etc

it could be that the loft is safe / structurally sound / has retrospective consent dated for 2012, and the additional room makes that a worthwhile bet for me IF the price reflected that by today’s reg standards it’s non compliant due to ceiling height and therefore never will be.

i’d also want it for immediate bedroom use - and would be more happy to consider this if it was more occasional use.

so still inclined to walk. unless i can gain much more depth of info via a specialist and vendors accept that this does impact value and pricing reflects this.

i do think they’ll run into this with any other prospective buyer and it is priced and advertised as a 3 bed.

@FJKP
"the certificate albeit a retrospective consent doesn’t guarantee the integrity of the structure."

To be fair, no building control certificate does, although one granted retrospectively less so as it wasn't inspected progressively during the build.

It is surprising that there are more and more issues like this of no building regs...I'm understanding more so since planning was liberalised and people think they don't need building control either

From a resale view I wouldn't be too concerned at all; I think you've gone in depth considering it to a level most buyers wouldn't. They may simply take it at face value that the permission/certificates exist and that will satisfy them.

But I agree it should be a 2 bed with additional functional space price.

It sounds like you're just not 100% about this one though, and from experience, it's best to walk away when you have these niggles.

I think you are fussing over the regs - it has a certificate
The ceiling height is the bigger issue - 1.7m does not provide you with a usable room