Building Regs Property Search Results

[NotAPangolin]

Hi,

I'm in the process of purchasing a property and the below has come up on the searches. It relates to an adjoining garage which was converted into an extension of the living room.

Our conveyancer says that this is proof that building regs were signed off.

However, since the person who carried out the work had only owned the property since 25 January 2006, I think the 17/02/2006 date reflects when notice was given of works to be carried out, 28/02/2006 reflects when the notification was accepted, and I suspect that 12/06/2006 represents the electrician signing off their own work under CPS, presumably nearer the end of the conversion project.

I'd really appreciate the insight of anyone with a bit more experience and understanding in this area. Thanks in advance!

 

[^woody^]

I can't see how that is proof that the work is certified and signed off as complete.

It appears that "Accepted" in that context means that an application has been registered and is valid so had been accepted. Although there are other similar codes there with potential similar meaning. Get it clarified.
It's also confusing that some of those codes apply to planning permission not building regulations.

Don't associate one record with another and that the status of the electrics implies status of the conversion work.

I would expect to see the status of the conversion work change throughout the works and it end up as "complete" or suchlike - although there are no codes for that!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Give them buzz and (assuming someone is prepared to talk to you) you can ask them to clarify, your solicitor is probably clueless.

 

[flameport]

and I suspect that 12/06/2006 represents the electrician signing off their own work under CPS, presumably nearer the end of the conversion project.

That could have been for any electrical work, not necessarily related to the extension.
At the time, plenty of electrical items were notifiable including most things outside, alterations or additions in a kitchen, new circuits anywhere, a replacement consumer unit, most things in a bathroom or shower room.

 

[blup]

If the survey comes back ok, rely on your conveyancers written assurances and sue them for professional negligence if anything goes wrong.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Rubbish advice.

 

[mrrusty]

It's 20 years ago!. Are you bothered? certainly the LA won't be, so this is just a tick-box exercise. As long as it surveys OK, take the path of least resistance - maybe just accepting the conveyancer says it's OK, or maybe an indemnity if necessary (a waste of time and money, but sometimes needs must)

 

[^woody^]

It's 20 years ago!. Are you bothered? certainly the LA won't be, so this is just a tick-box exercise. As long as it surveys OK, take the path of least resistance - maybe just accepting the conveyancer says it's OK, or maybe an indemnity if necessary (a waste of time and money, but sometimes needs must)

That's a big risk for any buyer, and one that needs to be weighed up and compensated for in the purchase price.

The buyer will need a more detailed and specific survey of the extension works, and a normal survey won't be sufficient to determine if the works are acceptable.

There is then the buildings insurance risk of having potentially unauthorized works and in the event of a claim, any claim, having that denied or reduced.

And being in this exact same position when the OP comes to sell and potential buyers do not take the advice of "Oh just buy it, it will be fine", and decide that they want the works verified.

 

[mrrusty]

There is then the buildings insurance risk of having potentially unauthorized works and in the event of a claim, any claim, having that denied or reduced.

Frankly, that is cobblers up until someone shows me the wording from an actual insurance policy that states this exclusion for 20 year old works. It certainly isn't in mine.

And if an extension is looking good with no cracking after 20 years, I think it's fair to say it's OK. We bought a very similar house with a similar issue, and just used my own eyes. When we sold there was no issue either.

 

[^woody^]

It certainly isn't in mine

Probably because its not listed as 5000 bullet points in stabilo yellow covering every scenario.

However you may like to read the more generic bits about duty of disclosure or fair presentation of risk.

Particularly the explicit or implied duty to mention any material fact. Your proposal may even state something like "A material fact is one that would influence the judgement of a prudent insurer in determining whether to accept the risk and on what terms"

Unauthorised work, which may by implication be not up to any applicable standard, would be a risk for any insurer.

As for your experience of selling one similar house with no issues. I'll see you and raise you my experience of around 20 buyers a year either getting significant reductions or pulling out of sales because their surveyor knows the risks of any repairs/replacements/alterations/extensions and how to quantify them.