Have you A) sold a property with a loft conversion that has no building regs sign off or B) bought one?

[WorriedMutha]

We are potentially in position B and are trying to weigh up the pitfalls of proceeding. This has emerged very late in the day and it should have been disclosed much earlier. Essentially our proposed 4 b/r house should be a 3 b/r with a loft space. I know there are other threads on this issue. I've read them all and Googled the life out of the problem. It divides into 'it'll be fiiiiiiinnnnee' (as per our estate agent) or 'run a mile'.
I've just disclosed it to an insurer that had quoted for our proposed purchase and the customer service agent sought advice from the underwriter. His reply was 'decline quote'.
If you are in A) and have sold a house in similar circumstances (which happens every day and nobody's bovvered according to the agent), how did the agent market the property. Was the irregular loft included in the b/r count? Or did they err on the side of caution and keep it as a useful space, games room, casual living facility. Basically can the estate agent be found wanting here or is this par for the course.
We will have lost a couple of thousand in survey and solicitor fees so I will be complaining bitterly if they have misrepresented this property. I would follow up with the property ombudsman if I was sure of my ground. It helps therefore if you have experience of the approach of your agents.
It does look as if there was a certificate of lawful development in 2012 so this loft has been around a while without the house falling down. So far as I can see this doesn't get round the building regs issue. The vendors already have indemnity insurance that predates their purchase which is why I am certain this was a known issue. I can see that the insurance was issued to their solicitor so they must have known of the defect from the outset.
Over to you Mumsnet. I appreciate the help.

Thank you so much everyone. Such useful info. I note someone had mentioned being in a similar situation from a 1970s conversion but building regulations didn't exist then so it isn't comparable. There are lots of historic houses that wouldn't get the ok now but the system judges you on the rules prevailing at the time.
It was definitely marketed as a 4 bedroom and that is what irks the most. The accommodation just doesn't work for us unless this is a bedroom. We wouldn't have come this far to reach this outcome.
I understand perfectly that the house isn't currently failing structurally.
Many of you have said you know what BR issues you have eg fire doors. The problem for us is we don't. Our surveyor has advised on what is required and even said he thinks there is a window height measurement that wouldn't be compliant under the rules at the time. He said that would be fine if the inspector signed it off as they have discretion but the problem is we don't have sign off. You can only really know about floor reinforcement and roof insulation by getting a contractor in to excavate and then make good the damage caused by exposure. This is what we would have to do if we applied to make good any deficit retrospectively and he said he had assisted with these applications previously.
The problem is, a retrospective regularisation application would void the indemnity insurance and could prove to be a can of worms if they highlight any expensive remedial works. It would also only be approved on the rules prevailing now.
In all honesty, we would have run for the hills if this had come to light at the beginning (June!!!). We were already disappointed at the vendors delay causing us to miss the final stamp duty giveaway but we weren't expecting this devastating turn of events.
Yes it would adversely affect the valuation but we offered in a hot London market with other offers on the table and we got it for a shade over asking. There were higher offers but we are in a good position.
We are back on Rightmove adding potential houses to favourites at the moment and hoping that if anything good comes from this sorry saga, it could be that the SD frenzy has cooled down (and we are still in a good position).
We haven't officially pulled out as we have a telephone round up with our solicitor tomorrow. We will decide after that and let the vendors sweat.

Fundamentally if you’re paying a 4-bed price for a 3-bed plus attic space then I’d be revising my offer downwards at the very least. As to who’s responsible for telling you about the issue, well if the estate agent knew it didn’t have sign off but was still marketing it as a 4-bed then that’s pretty cheeky. I’ve viewed properties advertised as 3-beds which on arrival turned out to be 2-bed plus attic conversion which didn’t meet building regs, and walked away from them - waste of everyone’s time. Ultimately it’s your solicitor’s job to spot these issues though, presumably this has come up now because they flagged it?

Yes building inspectors do have leeway.

We had someone (a friend) project managing the build and dealt with 2 or 3 people from the Council team through the build. Plans were initially signed off, then they visited during construction to inspect joists and insulation, and again at the end with their tape measure to check things like head height. In terms of doors, they were happy for us to email a copy of the invoice for the ones we'd bought rather than seeing them installed.

When the final inspection happened it was a different inspector who was not happy with the velux windows in the loft which start around chest height as you look out. She wanted them lower down the walls so they could be used as a fire escape route. Luckily our project manager went back to them and pointed out that "escaping" onto a steeply pitched roof, 30 feet up and with nothing to break the fall wasn't really smart, was it? She was all for making us rip out the windows and put them back in lower down, but backed down/saw common sense.

I would be very pissed off with the selling agent though OP in your situation.

The indemnity policy is a bit of a red herring. The local authority can only enforce the regulations up to 2 years after the work has bern carried out. It only covers enforcement costs not losses due to failure in the structure. It may be the the that allows the mortgage company to go ahead but in practice it gives you no protection. www.myconveyancingspecialist.com/2020/04/09/buying-a-house-with-loft-conversion-without-building-regulations/

Do you know I guys, I don't know whether to laugh or cry but the vendors have just forwarded a ...........
'Building regulations as amended certificate of completion'
in relation to a ............
'loft conversion with rear dormer'
which states that..........
'It is certified that so far as the Council has been able to ascertain, after taking all reasonable steps in that behalf, the substantive requirements of the Building Regulations are satisfied'.
It is I think retrospective but it works doesn't it?
AIBU - Laugh
YANBU - Cry
For the love of God. Is it possible to make house buying any more stressful than it is.

OP that's mad but in fairness I think our extension done last year and inspected at every step by the regs guys has a very similar wording. They don't stick their necks out very far, just say that as far as they know it's ok.
So maybe it does have BR approval and all is fine? Is there a phone number on the certificate at all? Our BR team is small and friendly and always up for a chat - you could call them directly and ask if they know if the house...?

@WorriedMutha... time for a large glass of wine, I think. It works!! And you can add that the the words of your surveyor which were reassuring with the exception of the window height.. which as a previous posted pointed out, is not a real world concern.

Yes.. do verify that the certificate is not made on the estate agent's computer!!

I should just say about the window height also, that there is a Juliet balcony. So if you were minded to jump into the arms of a hunky firefighter, you would be better served by leaping to the first floor roof from the balcony.
As @KingsleyShacklebolt says above, if they were to exercise discretion, escaping from a Juliet balcony (above a first floor flat roof) surely trumps leaping from the roof Velux lol.
So that minor breach is inconsequential as far as I'm concerned.

Oh Gawd @ChateauMargaux I hadn't thought of that. I'm probably best left alone now to nurse a bottle of wine quietly on the sofa.
I'm not called WorriedMutha for nothing.
I've already Googled that the name of the chief buildings control officer signing off the certificate is legitimate. I probably ought to leave it there. Today has been enough of a white knuckle ride for my stress receptors.