What Can/Should I do? Historical Building Regulations Issue Raised

[MaisOuiMaisOui]

I just don’t know where to go with this and am feeling really stressed out. Grateful for any suggestions of what I should do.

My neighbour had an extension completed recently. Building Inspector asked if he could go in my garden to complete his inspection of the neighbour’s extension. He walked through my house, into garden had a look at whatever he needed to over our fence and 2 mins later left.

The next day he came back knocked on my door and started asking questions about our loft conversion. Which was weird. Conversion was completed 20+ years ago, before we bought the house. Certificate of completion for the work is filed with the deeds. Nothing raised by surveyor during house purchase.

So I outlined all of that minus the comment about the surveyor and asked him why he wanted to know. He told me that he can see from his brief walk through that our house doesn’t comply with building regs because the stairway isn’t enclosed and that would be required. And that this is unacceptable in his view.

The house was built in 1990 and has an open plan kitchen/dining room with the stairs going up from the dining room area - so stairs are ‘open’ to the kitchen. The layout is unchanged from 1990.

The inspector had gone back to the office after spending 30 seconds in my house the day before and pulled the paperwork for the loft conversion. He is adamant (and quite aggressive in his manner) and insisted that at the time the work was signed off for our loft the plan includes a wall across the dining room to create a new corridor and segregate the stairs from the kitchen. And he told me the wall must have been removed in the interim period and that must be corrected. I was astonished! From his tone he was clearly suggesting we had removed the wall. You only have to take a look at the estate agent info from when we bought the house to see that’s absurd. There is no evidence a wall was ever there and the layout would just not work if anyone put a wall in such a crazy location. It would not have been worth converting the loft.

House is semi detached and attached neighbour’s layout is identical, they had the same loft conversion completed a couple of years before our house did. Also no wall in their property just the same as ours. So it seems pretty unbelievable to suggest a wall was ever there. Or that both property owners put a wall up for building control then took it down.

Building inspector stomped off when i raised all of that. Told me he would be in touch.

I have no knowledge of the details of the loft conversion and completely accept that the regs are such that if the house was built today the staircase would need to be enclosed.

I don’t believe anyone put up a partition wall and I don’t believe anyone did any sneaky structural changes subsequently. There’s just no evidence of it and the fact both my and my neighbours property had a loft conversion a couple of years apart and have the same layout suggests to me at least that the layout we both have was compliant with the regs at the time.

I would like to know if what he is saying is correct. So basically whether 20 years ago what he is describing would have been required. Where can I go to get the answer?

And surely if the house was so obviously non compliant with building regs a couple of years after the work was completed when we bought the property, shouldn’t that have been noted in our survey?

sorry for the long post - thanks if you read it all!

The wired fire alarms are likely to be the alternative measure that meant you got the sign off back in the day.

I'd ignore for now. If the person continues to go after you I'd complain to his manager and say that their authority signed it off, you didn't invite the person to look at this issue anyway and ask how they are going to rectify their mistake if it was one.

Ignore it. When you sell the buyers conveyancer will discover the building reg compliance certificate in their local search. They will be satisfied with that. As for the interfering officer, enforcement for breach of regs (if there has been one) is out of time so the authority cannot do anything anyway. Houses are sold all the time where certain aspects would not satisfy current regs, as regs are changing all the time. Worst case scenario you offer your buyers an indemnity insurance policy but I bet my bottom dollar that no issues will arise because you do have a compliance certificate.

I also think that hard wired alarms would be a mitigation from not having an enclosed staircase - but I am not qualified! Just repeating what H often says (building control).

I think I'd be tempted to ignore it if I wasn't planning to move in the near future. The enforcement officer may well be incentivised to make these 'discoveries' - H certainly was when he worked for Westminster Building control. They had to find 6 a year in order to meet part of their appraisal.

I think they will write to you if they put it on the land searches, but from memory you don't get to appeal that although you can complain to the council.

Enhanced smoke detection is not a mitigation for an unprotected stair. The only acceptable mitigation is a suppression system.

Not now, not when it was signed off years ago it likely was.

No, it wasn’t. I work in the field. Trust me, I know.

I don't believe you - any links to back up your claims?

You misunderstand what smoke detectors do. They just let you know when a fire has already started.

Smoke detectors don't make the exit route usable when it's already filled with toxic smoke.

In this context smoke detectors will be essential anyway, but their purpose is to alert you to get out before the 20 minute fire resistance period is up for the fire doors on the protected exit route.

Anyway, all this is moot because the original approved plans show the wall and door that protected the exit route, which have since been removed.

Also for reference the building regs that were in force 20 years ago are here
<a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20141202115146mp_/www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADB_2000.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="blank">https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20141202115146mp/www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADB_2000.pdf

Thanks @johnd2

Thanks for the link to the 2000 regulations.
I see they came into effect on 1st January 2001.
Any idea what the rules were before that?

Was a protected stairwell required before 2000?

The 1992 approved documents predate that and back then the local library was the place to go, not sure if there's a copy anywhere online! You could try googling perhaps.

Okay thanks, our loft was approved in 2000 with no protected stairwell but mains smoke alarms
So it's possible the OP's property was considered okay in 1990

Now that’s interesting @Digimoor That’s exactly what I want someone with expert knowledge to confirm. I just don’t know who to ask or how to find someone to ask.

Given the survey was 18 years ago, they can’t. Statute of limitations of 6 years applies, assuming this is England

This seems to be the regulation in force in the early 1990s.

So would a loft conversion have to comply with all of the points? There’s no evidence for example that all the doors opening into the stairway were ever self closing and they certainly weren’t when we moved in and aren’t now - but that hasn’t been raised by the inspector.

I know in the case of listed buildings the current owner is liable no matter who did the work. Surely it’s only an issue when you come to see?

SELL not see!

And there are a lot of ‘shoulds’. Which seems a bit strange for mandatory requirements.

Yes but we will want to sell at some point.

@Deathbyfluffy good point in the statute of limitations

@MaisOuiMaisOui they are not mandatory. The actual building regulations act of parliament is relatively short and just says things like "adequate means of escape should be provided from all buildings from a fire safety point of view" . No normal person has a clue how to prove that in court, hence the approved documents are published which are deemed to satisfy the regulations.
But you are perfectly free to satisfy them in another way if you have the means to prove that it meets the actual regulations.

For you or I it's easier to just read them as"must"