Buying a house with a roof that doesnt have building regs

[banjodeano]

Hiya, we are in the process of buying a 1970's detatched house thats had a new roof, but our solicitor has just informed us that the property has not had building regs for the new roof, and asked me what i wanted to do, she said it could or could not be a problem, and said i could take out an indemnity if i wanted, what does that even mean?
We only had a specific survey done on a wall that was cracked on the property, but not a full survey of the house, would i be best informing the council and seeing what they say?
I think the roof was replaced about thee or four years ago, and it was tiled and was replaced with tiles

 

[tony1851]

This site is full of threads about solicitors who know nothing of Planning and Building Regs.
If the original roof had tiles and has been re-tiled, Building Regs were not necessary. She says it could - or could not - be a problem; well, is it or isn't it? - she's the solicitor.
She would get a cut on an indemnity policy, which will be useless anyway because the council would never be concerned.
Methinks you're being set up.
Tell her you're not bothered, and not to charge you extra for raising this non-issue.

 

[garyo]

If it was three or four years ago then it's beyond enforcement for not having sign off (12 month limit)

However, your concern might then be that some aspect might not have been done properly if it doesn't have a ticket (not that having a regs sign off is guarantee of that)

Was it the roof structure that was replaced, or just the battens/felt/tiles?

Don't say anything to the council yet - one of the conditions of the indemnity is that the council is not aware, or made aware, by you or the vendor.

 

[John D v2.0]

If it's the roof tiles only chances are it doesn't matter. In theory they should have upgraded the loft insulation to 10 inches or so to get sign off, but you can do that yourself for a couple of hundred.
If they replaced/changed any structure then they should have evidence that the replacement is strong enough, so insist on that.

 

[John D v2.0]

Oh and agreed with the above posters that indefinites insurance is a racket, our solicitors made us pay it because the hideous broken garage we are going to demolish that's in the same place on the plot as everyone else's on the street might be forced to be knocked down by someone who signed a deed in 1920s. Never mind the fact that would probably increase the value of the house, we still had to pay it.

 

[tony1851]

Was it the roof structure that was replaced, or just the battens/felt/tiles?

Not 100% clear, but it seems that it could just have been re-tiled. If that's the case, it's possible the solicitor is deliberately trying to worry him into buying a totally unnecessary indemnity policy, on which she will get a cut.
She will probably also charge him for the time involved in advising him that he should buy this useless product. Legalized fraud IMO.
Solicitors usually act for themselves, not their clients.

 

[^woody^]

IME, buying a house with a roof is more important than buying a house with building regulations.

 

[banjodeano]

Thanks for all the help and advice guys, the vendors had told me that the loft had been fully insulated and the roof re tiled, they said that all the original roof tiles were crumbling so they had it all done, they didnt mention anything about any roof structure being altered though.
When my solicitor called me yesterday and mentioned the indemnity clause, i asked who would pay for it, she said the seller would pay for it and i would just sign it....i didnt even know what it was, if the sellers thought they had done something wrong with not having building regs, they didnt even need to tell me that they had had a new roof on, they thought it was a great selling point and mentioned it several times, they have a written gaurantee from the roofer.
Thanks again

 

[garyo]

Oh and agreed with the above posters that indefinites insurance is a racket

My limited experience of them is that planning and regs laws are too technical and granular to navigate so they've given up. The kick-back that they then get from the sale makes it a win-win for them doesn't it. The vendor of the house I bought 15 years ago was made to buy an indemnity for their conservatory not having planning or regs. It'd been there for at least 10 years and wouldn't have required either by modern (PD) standards. My two transactions since them have been similar: they ignore that exemptions from PP and regs exist, and default position is "if you've done something/anything, where are the tickets"