Disaster to Cheer-Up Your Sunday (but not for me...)

[ericmark]

I still remember my mothers wet room. The house when built has a drain fitted to the coal shed so it could be converted to an outside toilet at a latter date forward thinking for 1954 it also had a lintel fitted to inside wall so entrance could be changed. Over the years the coal shed was converted to outside toilet then inside toilet, but when my mother lost her leg we decided the pantry and toilet needed converting into a wet room.

My sister insisted we got a proper builder as she said we never finished any job. Time resulted in very few builders we could use to have it finished before mother came out of hospital so a builder some 30 miles away in Corwen got the job and we sat back and let him do it. However as the day approached for mother to come home work was not completed. My son shouted as the builder who walked of site never to be seen again. So we were forced to finish the job. Assuming the builder had informed building control we contacted them to say we were taking over the job.

This was like opening Pandora's box, once done no going back, and it seems the builder had not contacted the LABC, and to compound on that in legal terms it is the owner, not the builder who is responsible for informing them. Lucky for us since the work was for my mothers disability there were no charges, but he inspected drains, lintels, and electrics he was happy with the drains, wanted work on the lintels, and wanted us to use one of the electricians on his list. We told him we would do electrics, both my son and I are industrial electricians. We really had a hard job getting him to let us do the work.

In view of what happened to me, I would think twice about going to the authorities. It could cause more problems than is solves, specially if the house is re-banded to next band up because of the work.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

in legal terms it is the owner, not the builder who is responsible for informing them.

1) It's not.

2) It's even more not when ownership has changed.

There is nothing that the council can do to Jock about work done before he bought the property but not notified.

 

[ericmark]

The councils have many times ordered owners to do things to their property, and when not done have even taken ownership of the property This was an extreme case but the council can and do require owners to do things to their property. Even when it has change hands a few times, it is still the owner they aim for.

The council are not worried about who did the work, only getting the work to the required standard, or in some case removing the work and returning it to original state.

As to who one would look to with compensation I don't know. Would it be previous owners for doing illegal work, or the solicitor for not identifying the illegal work before transfer of ownership. It gets complex as you can't have a legal contract to do illegal work. I can't take some one to court for not shooting some one when I paid them to do it.

We also see the sale of goods for a £1 when we are taking about whole steel works because the owner is responsible and they have by paying that £1 taken on the responsibility.

In the main LABC inspectors are reasonable, and do not ask for items to be returned to their original use. However this shop taken over by UKIP is now back to being a shop after they failed to request a change of use. I would guess some one in council did not like UKIP?

Don't think the council has no teeth, when they want they do rattle their chains and get what they want. Some times better to let sleeping dogs lie.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The councils have many times ordered owners to do things to their property, and when not done have even taken ownership of the property This was an extreme case but the council can and do require owners to do things to their property. Even when it has change hands a few times, it is still the owner they aim for.

1) That's the compulsory purchase of a badly neglected listed building - absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Building Regulations.
2) Please pay attention to what I was talking about:

There is nothing that the council can do to Jock about work done before he bought the property but not notified.

The council are not worried about who did the work

Maybe not, but if you bring them evidence of a Building Regulations contravention and they do nothing because they aren't worried about crimes (and yes, contravention of the Building Regulations, including failure to notify is a crime) then they should expect life to be made uncomfortable.

only getting the work to the required standard, or in some case removing the work and returning it to original state.

Sounds to me as if the OP is planning to do anyway what could possibly be the subject of an enforcement order.

As to who one would look to with compensation I don't know.

Assuming it's the case (Winston had a valid point), starting with the people who lied to you about a material fact relevant to the sale of something worth £hundreds of thousands would be a good place to start.

We also see the sale of goods for a £1 when we are taking about whole steel works because the owner is responsible and they have by paying that £1 taken on the responsibility.

If you think that that is in any way a useful analogy of the sale of a house where the vendor lied about controlled work then there is little point trying to discuss it with you

 

[stillp]

Some people just need shot...

If the extension was done under the previous owners watch, then you should start to make an almighty fuss.

Contact the council and demand that they prosecute him for Building Regulations contraventions, and tell them that if they don't then they too will be in the firing line because you will never, ever give up on getting them to step up to their responsibilities, and they will end up in court one way or another.

Invest a bit of money in paying for a rottweiler solicitor to (at least give the appearance of) you starting legal action against the seller for compensation. If he lied on the questionnaire in the sale, go to the police and make a formal statement reporting a case of fraud.

Chances of anything coming of any of the above are slim, but worth it for the chance of causing the previous owner to cack himself.

Of course it could have been done prior to 2005, so Buildings Regulations not apply.

"Scotland was the first country in the United Kingdom to adopt national regulations. The Building (Scotland) Act in 1959 created the power to do so. The first set of Building Regulations was published in 1963 and came into force in 1964. England and Wales followed suit. The Public Health Act of 1961 was the statutory instrument and the first regulations were published in 1965. They came into operation in February 1966 throughout England and Wales, apart from the Inner London Boroughs. The Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order of 1972 established regulations for Northern Ireland modelled closely on those for England. There have been several revisions of the various regulations subsequently."
http://www.buildinghistory.org/regulations.shtml

 

[BigJock2005]

The previous owners were in the house for 10 years, and this work was done prior to them buying the house, so we're looking at 2005 latest. But I mean, I know, not only is it an utterly **** job, but he used bright orange garden cable as if to say - look how mega **** I can be!!!

Had a right good poke about tonight with a torch and the mobile phone (great for taking pictures inside gaps and round impossible corners so long as you don't drop the bugger) and I've traced all the wiring. So I know what I'm dealing with now.

I'll move this to the leccy forum and ask about your RCD comment in there!

Thanks for the comments and all.