Building regs

[Woodmonkey]

We have been looking to buy a house recently. We've just looked at one which we really liked, but there is an issue with the building regs not being signed off.This is the statement from the vendor:

"When we renovated and extended in 2007 we were told that for the open plan kitchen/living area to meet building regs we should put in a partition wall and fire door to separate the stairs and hallway from the open plan area. The required effect is to separate the kitchen (which in all building regs scenarios is deemed a fire risk) from the escape route from the house (ie the stairs to hallway to front door) This was highlighted as an issue on this house as there is no side or rear access to the property - this means to escape out of the rear windows in event of fire would mean (in legal terms) trespassing on our neighbours property.
The actual reality is felt our neighbours wouldn't mind at all us escaping out of the bathroom or rear bedroom windows into their gardens. So we made a sensible decision not to put up the partition wall that we felt would have had a negative impact on the asthetic appeal of the space. We also installed two well positioned smoke alarms to mitigate any concerns we had about fire safety.

A partition wall can be added at any time and then the regs will be met. An alternative to the partition wall is to put an adjoining door between the bedrooms, this would establish the front bedroom window as a means of fire escape"

Now from a common sense perspective I agree that in the event of a fire, trespassing on your neighbours garden wouldn't be high on your list of worries, but I'm concerned that without building regs
a) mortagage lender won't lend
b) insurance companies maybe would not not insure (which in turn would mean we couldn't get a mortgage).

Does anyone have any knowledge or experience in this area? (I should add that neither of the two options stated in order to get the regs signed off are desirable)
Thanks.

 

[RogerS]

There is also (c)....might Building Control come back and insist that the partition wall and fire door be installed.

I am no expert but it does seem to me that you are, unfortunately, on a hiding to nothing. That it does not have Sign Off will probably mean that your mortgage company won't give you a mortgage because they will look at it from the point of view of a forced sale should you default on your payments. They would probably think that the lack of Sign Off would make it difficult or even impossible for them to sell. If they made a shortfall on the outstanding mortgage then my understanding is that they can still then cone knocking at your door for the outstanding money.

Not so sure how insurance companies would view things. It's not as if it is structural and therefore have a possible impact on the integrity of the building and whether or not a claim might be made in the future if it all fell down.

I did Google and got this http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/sho ... ?t=3709591

I used these search terms and a whole host of results came up

mortgage company building control no sign off

 

[MMUK]

The only way forward, in my view as a property developer, would be to insist that the vendor bring the works up to spec and get it signed off at their own expense if they wish you to purchase the property. If they are not amenable to that then I'd recommend you walk away.

 

[Woodmonkey]

Roger - I don't think the lack of sign- off will make it difficult to re-sell, today was the first day of viewings and there have already been three offers made so it doesn't seem to be putting people off
MMUK - bringing the works up to spec seems like a relatively simple matter, the issue is what problems will there be buying or owning a house that doesn't have the sign-off?

 

[Drudgeon]

This is a common issue, it is quite often the case that a builder will be asked to put in place a "temporary wall" that will satisfy building control, once the completion certificate is issued, the home owner (not contractor) can remove this wall, this is perfectly above board and does not affect the completion certificate, this is the way it quite often happens, most building control officers agree that it is a silly rule, and that if a home owner would like an open plan living space, then they should really be able to request one, but the current rules do no permit it.

You can do it in your own home, no problem, no laws broken, but a contractor cannot do it for you in the course of building works.

My thoughts are that a mortgage company would not lend, I would explain this to the sellers and request they get someone in to construct a "temporary wall" the twill comply and for BC to issue completion certs to allow the sale to go through.

 

[RobinBHM]

I think this is a minor infringement that could be resolved by asking the vendors to pay for indemnity insurance.

Such insurance is becoming very common these days as solicitors dealing in conveyancing are increasingly raising queries about building regulations issues -a lack of a Fensa cert for window replacements being a very common issue.

If the house ticks all the boxes otherwise, I would check with your mortgage co if this is a prob.

 

[MMUK]

a lack of a Fensa cert for window replacements being a very common issue.

You know some very out of date solicitors. Certas is the preferred regulatory body these days. FENSA went out of the window about 4 years ago......


Although, technically speaking, neither are a legal requirement as long as the work meets building regs standards. If the windows are pre-2002, regs don't apply.

 

[RobinBHM]

Not out of date solicitors just my out of date mind! I am a member of CERTASS as it happens but dont often install.

Of course these days there's u values and CE marks to worry about as well.........

Robin

 

[MMUK]

Of course these days there's u values and CE marks to worry about as well.........

As I don't manufacture any more I let my suppliers worry about that :lol:

 

[RobinBHM]

Lucky you!

I wont start a rant about how legislation is making it harder than ever for small joinery works to remain viable, otherwise Id be at risk of sidetracking this thread!

Most of my work is now timber orangeries, so lots of building regulations to consider. Although our local authorities will view orangeries as exempt structures -provided thermally separated, substantially glazed etc.

 

[Woodmonkey]

Robin how would the indemnity insurance work? Would that be a one off payment by the vendor? What exactly would they be insured against?

 

[cambournepete]

When we sold 18 months ago we took out indemnity insurance as I'd done some electrical work. For £65 it meant there are no comebacks on us.

 

[RobinBHM]

Indemnity insurance protects against legal action from breach of planning, absence of building regulations, unknown restrictive covenents.

It seems the vendor would normally pay -thats what happened when I sold a house, a previous extension had no building regs paperwork and it worked out cheaper to pay insurance than pay the council for a search. The buyers solicitors are the reason the vendor pays. There is no reason why the buyer cant take out a policy if that didnt happen.

Of course such insurance does not protect against structural or other physical issues, thats for the surveyor to find.

Cheers Robin.

 

[MMUK]

And conveyancing structural surveyors are among the best in the land :roll: :roll: :roll:

How some of them keep their jobs is beyond me judging by some of the jobs I get called to by new house owners :shock: