Supporting wall removed with no docs

[domesticbadger]

Hi all

Just looking for some second opinions.

Been going through a purchase of a house where there's been structural alterations. There's been a set of French doors added for a conservatory off a dining room, for which the were no BR or documents available (over 20 years in age) and also a supporting wall between that room and the kitchen has been removed. An RSJ has been added, but it is exposed on one end and it's hard to see what it sits on, so wouldn't have passed regs anyway.

Conveyencer made enquiries but the response has been that it was done "DIY" and that there were no BR for that. It is also looking likely that there were no engineering drawings for it either.

So, as it stands, it does appear that 1/4 of the footprint has had supporting walls altered with no proof of it being done correctly.

We've been carefully planning the chain for months and don't have much in the way of other options, but I'm also concerned at making am expensive mistake buying a house that may be a nightmare to sell in future.

Does this sound like a bodge job that should be avoided? I expect it could be resolved with retrospective BR and getting it inspected to see it is a proper job, but starting to think like I need to revisit the agreed price. I might be overreacting but not sure.

Any advice or anecdotes welcome

 

[Mottie]

If it’s lasted over 20 years so far, I can’t see it being a problem.

I removed a supporting wall and fitted an RSJ in my current house in the year 2000. It’s still standing. In our previous house that we bought in 1984, that had been converted to a through lounge before we moved in and that was done using two pieces of timber. It’s still standing and I know there has been no problems as I've known all the subsequent owners as we still own a property next door.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

As above, if there are no cracks or other suspicious things then irrespective of how it was done it would appear to be adequate at least.

 

[domesticbadger]

If it’s lasted over 20 years so far, I can’t see it being a problem.

I removed a supporting wall and fitted an RSJ in my current house in the year 2000. It’s still standing. In our previous house that we bought in 1984, that had been converted to a through lounge before we moved in and that was done using two pieces of timber. It’s still standing and I know there has been no problems as I've known all the subsequent owners as we still own a property next door.

The main works with the big RSJ aren't 20 years old - they are somewhat more recent. (worded it badly)

The vendor is excusing the lack of docs for the conservatory being prior to their ownership, but the main supporting wall has been done within the last 5 years roughly (by them) , and was done without building regs or structural engineering advice as "DIY" it seems

 

[^woody^]

Do they have any receipts, photos or suchlike to evidence what size beam was put in and how it was done?

Whilst age is a good test of performance, if timber joists were cut or not supported properly on any new beam, then movement can be slow and progressive, and five years may not be long enough as a test - although if there was to be movement some movement could be visible early on.

There is an inherent risk with undocumented work and for a buyer, the worst should be considered and as such the question of how much risk to accept and what compensation (reduction in the selling price) would be adequate.

In practical terms, the concern would not be of it falling down or the council investigating, but one of some future movement that cracks or distorts, and that is the risk that needs to be considered and compensated for.

 

[domesticbadger]

Do they have any receipts, photos or suchlike to evidence what size beam was put in and how it was done?

Whilst age is a good test of performance, if timber joists were cut or not supported properly on any new beam, then movement can be slow and progressive, and five years may not be long enough as a test - although if there was to be movement some movement could be visible early on.

There is an inherent risk with undocumented work and for a buyer, the worst should be considered and as such the question of how much risk to accept and what compensation (reduction in the selling price) would be adequate.

In practical terms, the concern would not be of it falling down or the council investigating, but one of some future movement that cracks or distorts, and that is the risk that needs to be considered and compensated for.

No, they have nothing at all to document the work and have so far responded with a somewhat dismissive "DIY" label.

I can see from the surveyor's photos of the exposed section that it is an I-beam, maybe approx 100mm wide, but I'm somewhat concerned by the lack of visible padstones, with mucky mortar job going on, so we don't know what is holding it up on this side, nor on the other side.

As above, if there are no cracks or other suspicious things then irrespective of how it was done it would appear to be adequate at least.

The issue is that cracks can be filled, and often are, so we wouldn't have any real idea of stability/movement until after the fact. By this point it becomes rather too late

 

[Deluks]

It looks oversized for that relatively short span.
I wouldn't worry about it, but lack of regs does give you some bargaining power.