Buying a house that lacks some building regs approval
Discussion
In the middle of buying the house I'm currently renting, from my landlord. It was extended in the mid 1980's, all in accordance with approved planning application. But now I've done a bit of digging and it turns out that building control were never notified of (hence inspected or approved) the extension being constructed.
The extension consists of a two storey rear extension - the ground floor is single skin concrete block, 4" thick plus render, about 9 feet long on each side. Above that the first floor is a single skin timber frame construction, clad in board/mesh and rendered finish. Does that sound acceptable, in terms of providing structural stability - does a single skin concrete block wall have sufficient load bearing capabilities for a timber framed floor above (with a flat roof)?
The other part of the extension is a loft conversion on top of the original house - the roof line was raised to create a second floor. That is all timber as well - roof/gable ends/dormer windows. Since the roof was entirely rebuilt with new timber, I'm reasonably confident that suitable support for the second floor would have also been added. There is a boxed section protruding from the first floor ceiling that spans the width of the house, can't tell if it hides an RSJ or timber beam though.
My conveyancing solicitor is of the opinion that it's a moot point, since it's been standing for over 30 years, and that I should rely on my surveyor to assess it. The council can't enforce on it (unless they deem it dangerous). I've lived here for 10 years and I'm reasonably confident that it's not going to fall down tomorrow. We had a full structural survey done a couple of years ago (when I was considering buying it before). The surveyor (who I've since lost confidence in somewhat), described the construction of the extension as far as can be seen without tearing it apart, and his only comment was that relevant approvals should be on council records, but he didn't check them himself.
I was talking to another building surveyor who visited recently (on a specific, but sort of related task), and he instantly commented in passing that it obviously wasn't built to building regs standards, and almost certainly hadn't been notified to building control.
I think it's structurally sound, although not of the most substantial construction. My main concern is that a bit of googling reveals that mortgage lenders 'don't like' lending on properties with missing building regs certification. I'm slightly surprised my solicitor hasn't made more of an issue of it, as I thought they'd be duty bound to inform my lender? They are just saying it's down to your surveyor to assess that it's structurally sound The last thing I want is to buy the place and find it's unsellable/mortgageable in the future. If you consider the house without the extension it goes from being a 3 bedroom terraced house to a 1 bed with no kitchen!
I'm thinking of trying to get a structural engineer to give it the 'once over', and a bit of an opinion based on what he can see, as I think it's probably getting beyond the realms of a surveyor?
The extension consists of a two storey rear extension - the ground floor is single skin concrete block, 4" thick plus render, about 9 feet long on each side. Above that the first floor is a single skin timber frame construction, clad in board/mesh and rendered finish. Does that sound acceptable, in terms of providing structural stability - does a single skin concrete block wall have sufficient load bearing capabilities for a timber framed floor above (with a flat roof)?
The other part of the extension is a loft conversion on top of the original house - the roof line was raised to create a second floor. That is all timber as well - roof/gable ends/dormer windows. Since the roof was entirely rebuilt with new timber, I'm reasonably confident that suitable support for the second floor would have also been added. There is a boxed section protruding from the first floor ceiling that spans the width of the house, can't tell if it hides an RSJ or timber beam though.
My conveyancing solicitor is of the opinion that it's a moot point, since it's been standing for over 30 years, and that I should rely on my surveyor to assess it. The council can't enforce on it (unless they deem it dangerous). I've lived here for 10 years and I'm reasonably confident that it's not going to fall down tomorrow. We had a full structural survey done a couple of years ago (when I was considering buying it before). The surveyor (who I've since lost confidence in somewhat), described the construction of the extension as far as can be seen without tearing it apart, and his only comment was that relevant approvals should be on council records, but he didn't check them himself.
I was talking to another building surveyor who visited recently (on a specific, but sort of related task), and he instantly commented in passing that it obviously wasn't built to building regs standards, and almost certainly hadn't been notified to building control.
I think it's structurally sound, although not of the most substantial construction. My main concern is that a bit of googling reveals that mortgage lenders 'don't like' lending on properties with missing building regs certification. I'm slightly surprised my solicitor hasn't made more of an issue of it, as I thought they'd be duty bound to inform my lender? They are just saying it's down to your surveyor to assess that it's structurally sound The last thing I want is to buy the place and find it's unsellable/mortgageable in the future. If you consider the house without the extension it goes from being a 3 bedroom terraced house to a 1 bed with no kitchen!
I'm thinking of trying to get a structural engineer to give it the 'once over', and a bit of an opinion based on what he can see, as I think it's probably getting beyond the realms of a surveyor?
C0ffin D0dger said:
We had to buy an indemnity on our house for some internal work that hadn't been notified to building control. Cost was minimal (£20-£50?) as a I remember it. This was all that was needed to satisfy the lender.
This is correct, although apparently youre not meant to tell anyone(seriously it says so on the policies) incase they then tell the council who can then kick off which means the policy could then be activated and cost the insurer. But yes, get a policy, more like £200 in my experience and move on, simple. conveyancers always pick this up and dont like it, your mortgage company will need to be informed and will make a decision on it although it shouldnt hold you up too much. Get the seller to pay for it every time. Should be google able.Indemnity policy is out of the question in this case, because the council are now aware of it. I know a bloke who works in building control and it was him that i asked if he could see anything on record for it. Didn't realise at the time that it was going to void an indemnity, he specifically mentioned it in his response. I can imagine him being a bit of a jobsworth, but I guess it was his works email where o contacted him.
Conveyancer also said an indemnity would be a waste of time after such a long period, and the seller would probably never agree to take one out.
Conveyancer also said an indemnity would be a waste of time after such a long period, and the seller would probably never agree to take one out.
It's not that it lacks B Regs that bothers me - it's that it's a complete bodge - at best it's shed construction on top of garage construction.
I wouldn't consider buying it unless it was at a price where I could re build it.
I know it's stood for 10 years but so has my shed and you couldn't Mortgage that either.
Whilst you may get a Mortgage because many surveyors are useless you may well have a problem selling it.
I wouldn't consider buying it unless it was at a price where I could re build it.
I know it's stood for 10 years but so has my shed and you couldn't Mortgage that either.
Whilst you may get a Mortgage because many surveyors are useless you may well have a problem selling it.
Sorry I read that badly. If the council know then yes, a policy isnt an option. The only way is to get them in and figure out what needs doing to sign it off. Needless to say this could be time consuming and costly, may need to do some damage to expose certain things. Personally, Id walk away.
It looks like retrospective approval/regularisation is the best solution. It's going to be messy though, from what I can see:
- Only the council's building control dept can do regularisation (not private BCB),
- They can only do it for work after 11th Nov 1985 (planning was approved Oct 1984, although I suspect construction took a couple of years, based on neighbour's recollection),
- It sounds like quite an invasive procedure - stripping away parts to make structural stuff visible (no idea what they do about looking at footings),
- I'm got a strong suspicion that there is no way it would comply with building regs (even 1980's standards, never mind current ones), and that they might refuse retrospective approval anyway.
When regularising do they consider it against Buidling Regs that were in force at the time of construction?
We looked at a place that didn't have building regs for its 2-storey extension, that would have been stood for over 10yrs. An application to the authority was made to self-cert but no info was then ever sent in. Frankly the Building Control department couldn't have been any less bothered - their view was that regularisation would likely have to be far too invasive to be palatable to the buyer and that, "it's been stood for long enough and not fallen down so it's more than likely fine".
Advice at the time of looking was simply to get an indemnity from the seller and satisfy oneself that the construction was sound enough.
We looked at a place that didn't have building regs for its 2-storey extension, that would have been stood for over 10yrs. An application to the authority was made to self-cert but no info was then ever sent in. Frankly the Building Control department couldn't have been any less bothered - their view was that regularisation would likely have to be far too invasive to be palatable to the buyer and that, "it's been stood for long enough and not fallen down so it's more than likely fine".
Advice at the time of looking was simply to get an indemnity from the seller and satisfy oneself that the construction was sound enough.
Lesgrandepotato said:
When in the 80's? Didn't the big change of Building regs code come in in 1984?
Planning approved Oct '84, so presuming(!) that construction started after that. One neighbour seems to think it was finished sometime in 1987.Pretty sure the retrospective approval only has to meet standards at the time of construction, but I am still doubting that that it would actually pass even those - otherwise, why didn't the bloke that built it get it signed off at the time?
If the affected loft conversion and extension weren't present, the house would be worth approx 50% of the price we've agreed (going by recent sale of neighbouring property).
Extension sounds like a glorified shed and should be valued as such.
Shoddyness now the established pattern I'd be dubious of the loft too.
I'd want a full survey but often a decent builder can have usefull insights, even a sparks like me can often sniff out evidence of DIY bodgery during an electrical report (again not a bad idea generally but especially where bodgery may be suspected - expensive real electricians with their first world wage expectations and all are often one of the first corners to be cut by the common house and garden bodgerupper)
Shoddyness now the established pattern I'd be dubious of the loft too.
I'd want a full survey but often a decent builder can have usefull insights, even a sparks like me can often sniff out evidence of DIY bodgery during an electrical report (again not a bad idea generally but especially where bodgery may be suspected - expensive real electricians with their first world wage expectations and all are often one of the first corners to be cut by the common house and garden bodgerupper)
Already had a full survey done, but I've since had my doubts about the surveyor (even before I found out that he hadn't picked up that this extension wasn't compliant).
Now arranged for a structural engineer to perform a visible/preliminary inspection, although that's costing more than the survey did, and I'm paying for this. A further, invasive investigation he estimated at being £1k upwards (not surprising). My conveyancer has said it's my responsibility to satisfy myself of the structural integrity of the property, but my thoughts are that in lieu of being able to show building regs approval, the seller should shoulder some responsibility towards proving the structure?
Now arranged for a structural engineer to perform a visible/preliminary inspection, although that's costing more than the survey did, and I'm paying for this. A further, invasive investigation he estimated at being £1k upwards (not surprising). My conveyancer has said it's my responsibility to satisfy myself of the structural integrity of the property, but my thoughts are that in lieu of being able to show building regs approval, the seller should shoulder some responsibility towards proving the structure?
I once did a structural survey on a house that a guy had just bought in the eighties ... he came to me to design an extension to the property ... without even looking, I told him that the property was built like a shed and probably contained lots of asbestos ... long storey short, he sued the valuation surveyor, won, demolished the property and turned it into a cheap building plot, built a beautiful property (designed by yours truly 
), and saved lots of money ... but the operation took 3 years so was a bit traumatic
Moral of the storey ... don't rely on 'experts', local knowledge is a valuable thing
It appears that you have that local knowledge and are in a position to revalue the property so my advice would be:
1) Offer a price which you consider to be the true value taking into account what you are aware of (don't bother with any more surveys, you'll be wasting your money) and then knock a further decent amount off your offer for the risk you will be taking
2) Get a decent architect to design the dwelling you want by informing you which bits are best demolished and which bits of the original are worth saving (to me it sounds like your living in a shed over a garage as someone said earlier in the thread)
3) Live happily ever after
ETA I had my Structural Engineer's hat on when I wrote this, although most of my work these days is architectural
), and saved lots of money ... but the operation took 3 years so was a bit traumaticMoral of the storey ... don't rely on 'experts', local knowledge is a valuable thing
It appears that you have that local knowledge and are in a position to revalue the property so my advice would be:
1) Offer a price which you consider to be the true value taking into account what you are aware of (don't bother with any more surveys, you'll be wasting your money) and then knock a further decent amount off your offer for the risk you will be taking
2) Get a decent architect to design the dwelling you want by informing you which bits are best demolished and which bits of the original are worth saving (to me it sounds like your living in a shed over a garage as someone said earlier in the thread)
3) Live happily ever after
ETA I had my Structural Engineer's hat on when I wrote this, although most of my work these days is architectural
Edited by ATTAK Z on Thursday 29th September 19:34
Edited by ATTAK Z on Thursday 29th September 22:42
There's two parts to the extension - the first is obviously non compliant, the two storey timber frame over single skin blockwork. The valuation surveyor identified it and commented:
"First floor kitchen addition is of single skin non cavity rendered timber frame construction, comprises approx 12% of overall accommodation. This construction form is not universally acceptable to all mainstream mortgage lenders. It affects a relatively modest proportion of the accommodation."
The second part is the loft conversion - actually the roof level was raised to accommodate it, including reconstructing the whole roof. None of the structure is visible/accessible externally any more since the neighbours on both sides have now built up in a similar way. The valuation surveyor had no idea that this part was an alteration/addition to the original structure.
"First floor kitchen addition is of single skin non cavity rendered timber frame construction, comprises approx 12% of overall accommodation. This construction form is not universally acceptable to all mainstream mortgage lenders. It affects a relatively modest proportion of the accommodation."
The second part is the loft conversion - actually the roof level was raised to accommodate it, including reconstructing the whole roof. None of the structure is visible/accessible externally any more since the neighbours on both sides have now built up in a similar way. The valuation surveyor had no idea that this part was an alteration/addition to the original structure.
Edited by mjb1 on Sunday 2nd October 11:17
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff