Buying house lacking building regs approval?

[Elwood_Blues]

Recently found out that the house I'm about to exchange on has no building regs approvals for a loft conversion and rear extension. Surveyor (full structural) didn't pick up on it, but said in his disclaimers that it's my responsibility to check for it. So I did, and it hasn't got it. Local Building Control tell me they have nothing on record for these works. Had a structural engineer assess it (visual inspection only, seller won't approve an invasive investigation). At least some of what he can see isn't up to building regs standards (even for the era of the work), obviously that brings into question the main structural members that can't be properly inspected.

Now the complicated bit - the alterations had planning permission passed end of 1984, and the work was carried out around that time (although no one can prove exactly when it was started). The vendor's position is that since the work predates the 1985 building regs changes no approvals were necessary from building control. But building control officer (who might be a total jobsworth, for all I know), is pretty clear that there was some sort of notification and approval process before 1985, (even if it was just getting structural drawings checked). He would expect to see something on record, although some people doubt the completeness of council records back this far. I've checked the 1976 building regs, and they do indeed mention getting plans approved. The fact that it isn't constructed to the standards further suggests no drawings were ever approved.

I'm satisfied that the work is of sound construction (it's been there for 30 years without any issue) even though it isn't fully up to modern standards. I know building control aren't going to try and enforce on it. I see that there is a regularisation process for previously non approved work, but that this can only be done for stuff from 1985 onwards, so no use to me here as I doubt it would meet all the requirements of the 1984 building regs (and possibly not the earlier ones either).

Having spoken to estate agents, they advise that they would not be able to market the property with the loft conversion counted as habitable rooms - i.e. this 3 bed house can only be described as a one bed (with the benefit of some fancy loft storage rooms). That is bound to have an effect on the resale potential/value of the property.

Is it just as simple as saying "it's pre 1985, so exempt from building regs"? I wonder if building control would write a letter of comfort or similar, to give me peace of mind?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Are there two rooms in the loft then? What is it that is definitely not up to the regs of the time?

 

[^woody^]

Having spoken to estate agents, they advise that they would not be able to market the property with the loft conversion counted as habitable rooms - i.e. this 3 bed house can only be described as a one bed

What is it being marketed at the moment then? Are you buying a one bed house at the price of a one bed house?

 

[motorbiking]

seller needs to indemnify you and adjust the price appropriately. 5-10% off

building control are out of time to take action to rectify but they could seek an injunction on the use. very unlikely but the seller can get insurance for this.

 

[Elwood_Blues]

Yes, there are two rooms in the loft.

Floor joists (both first floor and loft conversion) undersized/overspaced. First floor joists aren't original, were replaced around the same time, when I believe a supporting internal wall was removed and a beam replaced them. Structural engineer couldn't see if the supporting beams were timber or steel, and obviously couldn't size them either. Some sag on the floors, suggesting they may not be up to standard.

Doesn't meet fire regulations (1984, and possibly earlier standards), engineer suggests no feasible way to alter the layout that would make it comply properly.

House hasn't been on the open market, I'm the current tenant (been living in it and using the rooms as bedrooms for my kids). Priced as a 3 bed as that's what it had been treated as in previous sales (10 and 15 years ago). It's changed hands at least a couple of times since the extensions, and no one seemed to pick up on the lack of regs in previous sales.

Indemnity insurance not possible as the council are now aware of it.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

seller needs to indemnify you and adjust the price appropriately. 5-10% off

WTF???

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

engineer suggests no feasible way to alter the layout that would make it comply properly

Are engineers the best to advise in terms of layout then?

 

[bernardgreen]

Doesn't meet fire regulations (1984, and possibly earlier standards), engineer suggests no feasible way to alter the layout that would make it comply properly.

House hasn't been on the open market, I'm the current tenant

So it seems the present owner was renting out ( to you ) a house that did not have building control approval and did not ( does not ) meet fire safety regulations.

I would say the owner, as your landord, is in a legal minefield. He may now be keen to relieve himself of that legal liability with a quick, ( hence reduced price ) sale before anything happens.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I would say the owner, as your landord, is in a legal minefield. He may now be keen to relieve himself of that legal liability with a quick, ( hence reduced price ) sale before anything happens.

Or he could live in the real world where there are millions of houses that could be considered dangerous or inadequate by modern standards.

 

[motorbiking]

Are you getting a mortgage and or building insurance? You need to check your obligations to disclose. You need to value the property based on how it could be advertised and adjust your offer or work out what it would cost to put right. Seller wont want the sale to fall through, you have some leverage. Whether you use it is up to you.

At the end of the day this probably isn't a massive problem, but you should think carefully about how you will be managing the problem when come to sell

 

[Elwood_Blues]

Got a mortgage approval from a mainstream lender, they commissioned a valuation survey which came back ok (but he obviously wasn't looking at structural stuff in detail). They are unaware of the lack of building regs approvals, and I'm getting mixed reports about whether it was necessary for work started before 1985.

 

[bernardgreen]

and I'm getting mixed reports about whether it was necessary for work started before 1985.

We built a house in 1980/81 and I can assure you there were building regulations in force and those relating to fire safety were enforced. The design had to comply and visits to inspect the work were also made.

 

[motorbiking]

What does your solicitor say? I don't really deal with this area of law, but there is a principle of disclosure "upmost good faith" in insurance law, known as uberrima fides, you know lawyers love latin I think you've done sufficient homework to put the seller to prove its compliant of face reduction in the offer.

 

[Elwood_Blues]

My solicitor says that they don't get involved with/aren't qualified to comment on structural 'issues' and that I should rely on my surveyor's opinion (the one who didn't notice/identify that lack of conformity that others have by a quick glance) to satisfy myself that the building is structurally OK. I haven't yet been able to get hold of them to run the structural engineers visual report past them.

 

[^woody^]

face reduction in the offer

And if the seller does not want to reduce the asking price in a sellers market?