Building regs prior to 1992

[Bazzeruk]

Is it right that if an extension was built prior to 1992, then building regs and planning permission has no bearing as it was done over 14 years ago?

I know it should still be checked, but is there any danger of local authority or bearded conservationists can cause a problem for us?

Not in a National Park, thank God!!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

You are well beyond the time frame whereby the Local Authority could bring about any prosecution. Though if it were a dangerous structure then you could be prosecuted for that at any time.

BTW elements of work that should either necessitated a Planning Application or were subject to building Control Approval do not become legal, they just become immune from prosecution.

 

[masona]

Any idea what the time frame is?

 

[geraldthehamster]

Any idea what the time frame is?

Generally, one year for Building Regs enforcement against the householder, and 2 years for possible prosecution of the builder (I think the latter is rare). For planning it's four years for unauthorised construction and ten years for change of use.

Correct me someone if I'm wrong.

Cheers
Richard

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

He's right.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I know it should still be checked, but is there any danger of local authority or bearded conservationists can cause a problem for us?

Why would conservationists cause a problem for you?

And why only bearded ones?

 

[bigmikerics]

There are time limits for planning permission, but, there is no cut off for a LA taking action under the Building Regs. There are different parts of legislation under which they take action against different people and in different timescales, but, ultimately, they can take action in a thousand years time if they want.

 

[bigmikerics]

To clarify, they would actually take action under the Building Act for contraventions of the Building Regulations. This is the legislation under which all prosecutions are taken for contraventions of the Building Regs.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There are time limits for planning permission, but, there is no cut off for a LA taking action under the Building Regs.

Yes there is.

they can take action in a thousand years time if they want.

No they can't.

For breaches committed on or after 22 September 2008, prosecution must be commenced within 6 months of the date when the discovery of the offending work was made and also commenced within 2 years of the completion of the offending works.

For breaches before then the time limits within which an offence may be prosecuted would depend upon both when the breach was committed and which regulation had been breached.

But they certainly cannot take action in a thousand years time.

 

[bigmikerics]

Oh ye of little knowledge. Section 36 of the building act imposes time limits on taking action against an owner/builder, but the act also specifically notes that nothing within the prescribed time periods in s36 prevents a LA (or anyone else for that matter) from taking action by way of an injunction at any time.
I've seen too many people fall foul of laws by going to court and offering up a defence based on half information gleaned from pseudo experts.
You should be able to find s36 online somewhere if you want to check.
There you go; Every day's a school day.

 

[tony1851]

Oh ye of little knowledge. Section 36 of the building act imposes time limits on taking action against an owner/builder, but the act also specifically notes that nothing within the prescribed time periods in s36 prevents a LA (or anyone else for that matter) from taking action by way of an injunction at any time.

But in practice it's very rare for a LA - or anyone else - to apply for an injunction to correct alleged contraventions.

s.36 is the usual route and there are of course strict time limits for that.

 

[bigmikerics]

True.
All the ones we've dealt with/heard of have been for imediate(ish) life safety issues such as fire safety, protection from falling and boiler installations. Plus, and hence the "ish" structural issues.
I do predict an increase in injunctions as LAs are left to pick up the pieces of some of the suspect construction being created by the changes in the provision of building control services.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh ye of little knowledge. Section 36 of the building act imposes time limits on taking action against an owner/builder, but the act also specifically notes that nothing within the prescribed time periods in s36 prevents a LA (or anyone else for that matter) from taking action by way of an injunction at any time.

Err...

To clarify, they would actually take action under the Building Act for contraventions of the Building Regulations. This is the legislation under which all prosecutions are taken for contraventions of the Building Regs.

You were talking about prosecutions, i.e. criminal proceedings in a magistrates court where if found guilty the result is a criminal record and a fine and/or a prison sentence.

That is not the same as an injunction, oh ye of little knowledge.

You should be able to find s36 online somewhere if you want to check.
There you go; Every day's a school day.

You should be able to find online somewhere the difference between an injunction and a prosecution if you want to check.

 

[bigmikerics]

From the clutching at straws nature of your latest post I think you realise you are wrong, and I suspect that, despite your efforts to prove otherwise, you are inteligent enough to understand why. However, for the benefit of anyone who wants the facts in a succinct form:
Irrespective if how long ago work was done action can be taken against you for contraventions of building regulations. However, as Tony says, it is rare, but not unheard of, beyond two years.
Regarding the semantics of "prosecution" and "injunction"; this is fairly irrelevant as the question related to the existence or otherwise of a cut off period for a LA taking action.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

From the clutching at straws nature of your latest post I think you realise you are wrong,

Actually, I know that I am right.

I think you may not realise that you are wrong.

Irrespective if how long ago work was done action can be taken against you for contraventions of building regulations.

It depends on what you mean by "action".

Whether it suits you or not, the fact is that you cannot be prosecuted more than 2 years after the completion of the work.

Whether it suits you or not, the fact is that you cannot be served with a Section 36 enforcement notice more than 1 year after the completion of the work.

And also the changes to the legislation which extended the limits from 6 months were not retrospective, and so do not apply to any work done before 2008.

So FMT says there's a time limit on prosecutions, geraldthehamster says there's a time limit on prosecutions, and I say there's a time limit on prosecutions and enforcement notices.

If you still refuse to believe any of us, try reading these:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nge_of_ownership_of_BRE_Certification_Ltd.pdf

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/responsibilities/buildingregulations/failure

However, as Tony says, it is rare, but not unheard of, beyond two years.

Well, I don't know what it is Tony has heard of happening beyond 2 years, but I can assure you it could not possibly have been a prosecution or an enforcement notice under Sections 35 or 36 of the Building Act.

Regarding the semantics of "prosecution" and "injunction"; this is fairly irrelevant as the question related to the existence or otherwise of a cut off period for a LA taking action.

And I'm the one clutching at straws?

Firstly, the difference between a prosecution and an injunction is significant.

Secondly, yes, the OP asked about the LA "taking action".

The very first reply talked about prosecution.

You talked about prosecution:

To clarify, they would actually take action under the Building Act for contraventions of the Building Regulations. This is the legislation under which all prosecutions are taken for contraventions of the Building Regs.

So please don't try and wriggle out of it.


Lastly, just to put the record straight...

Though if it were a dangerous structure then you could be prosecuted for that at any time.

No he cannot.

In theory he may be at risk of an injunction being served - the council, or in fact almost anybody over the age of 18, is free to go to court to seek an injunction requiring that someone do something, or stop doing it, or not do it again etc, but that is not a prosecution. You don't get charged with a criminal offence. An injunction being granted does not give you a criminal record, it does not get you fined or sent to prison. It is not a prosecution.


And as for the OP, I cannot begin to imagine why a court would entertain the idea of serving an injunction on the current owner of a property requiring them to do something related simply to the failure of a previous owner to obtain Building Regulations approval over 22 years ago.