About to sell! Please help...!

[snoops1]

We have a buyer for our house, but when filling in solicitors douments we realised that we do not have any certification for the following works:

New sash windows - installed 2006
New roof - installed 2007
New patio doors and front door - installed 2008/9
Some rewiring of electrics (done by my dad - a retired electrician) - in 2009

What should we do?
Presumably all of these would get flagged up if I declare these as works completed without building regulations?
I'm in need of selling the house fairly quickly...

The building jobs above were all carried out by local, reputable builders

 

[kbdiy]

What's done is done. All you can do is state the truth, in so much as you don't have the certs. Then wait and see what comes back. Let the buyer/solicitor make the next move rather than panicking about what might happen.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What should we do?

Tell the truth.

Presumably all of these would get flagged up if I declare these as works completed without building regulations?

But they weren't notified and you don't have completion certificates so those facts cannot (honestly) be concealed.

I'm in need of selling the house fairly quickly...

But not, I suggest, fraudulently.

If you lie on official documentation relating to the sale it is fraud. OK - the chances of you being prosecuted or sued are very very small, but is it worth the risk? If you end up with a bolshie buyer you could quickly burn through any notional extra you made because you weren't honest in solicitors fees even if it doesn't end up going to court.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

If you lie on official documentation relating to the sale it is fraud. OK - the chances of you being prosecuted or sued are very very small, but is it worth the risk? If you end up with a bolshie buyer you could quickly burn through any notional extra you made because you weren't honest in solicitors fees even if it doesn't end up going to court.

Has this ever gone to court BAS for concealing having got a few windows approved or some electric work?

Anyway @ the Op just fess up and pay a pointless indemnity policy to placate the buyers/solicitors.

 

[footprints]

Just tell the truth and see how it goes worst thing likely is they want an inspection carried out. They may just ask the surveyor to look more carefully.
Just be prepared to take a small hit on the price.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Has this ever gone to court BAS for concealing having got a few windows approved or some electric work?

Not AFAIK.

Anyway @ the Op just fess up and pay a pointless indemnity policy to placate the buyers/solicitors.

Are they only void if the insured person has previously asked Building Control about notifiable work?

Just wondered if someone who had been forced to pay for a pointless indemnity policy could spike it.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Are they only void if the insured person has previously asked Building Control about notifiable work?

Just wondered if someone who had been forced to pay for a pointless indemnity policy could spike it.

I don't really follow what you're asking.

If an enquiry has been made with BC then yes an indemnity is not suitable.

An indemnity is pointless anyway because it only covers the costs of any legal costs brought about by a prosecution from the LA. It does not cover the costs of having any remedial works carried out to legalise such works, not to mention that Building Control would never bother bringing about any prosecution for some un-approved electrics or windows unless there was a danger to life. These bits are the bits solicitors conveniently fail to mention when selling you a pointless indemnity.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't really follow what you're asking.

Alice is selling to Bob.

Bob demands that Alice pay for an indemnity policy.

Would (even the pointless) cover the policy provides be void if it had been Alice who had previously enquired of BC, or would it had to have been Bob?

An indemnity is pointless anyway because it only covers the costs of any legal costs brought about by a prosecution from the LA. It does not cover the costs of having any remedial works carried out to legalise such works, not to mention that Building Control would never bother bringing about any prosecution for some un-approved electrics or windows unless there was a danger to life. These bits are the bits solicitors conveniently fail to mention when selling you a pointless indemnity.

Indeed.

But if it's the vendor paying for a policy to assuage a buyer and get the sale to go through, that ploy wouldn't work if the buyer knew the truth about those policies.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Would (even the pointless) cover the policy provides be void if it had been Alice who had previously enquired of BC, or would it had to have been Bob?

Anyone, Alice, Bob, my uncle Fred or any of the solicitors.