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?
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 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.
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).
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?
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
Vendor is saying that as it was built before 1985 Building Act came in, then it didn't need approval. Stuff all over the internet seems to corroborate that. But bloke I know in building control says that isn't correct, and that work before '85 still needed consent?
Vendor is refusing permission for an invasive investigation by a structural engineer: "everything was fine when I bought it, so it can't be an issue now".
Vendor is refusing permission for an invasive investigation by a structural engineer: "everything was fine when I bought it, so it can't be an issue now".
I've received the report from the structural engineer's visual inspection. Says that both the first floor and loft conversion floor joists appear to be undersized. Couldn't see the supporting beams (not even sure if timber or steel), so couldn't comment on those, as expected. He also says it wouldn't have met 1984 fire regs (and probably not earlier ones), and would be almost impossible to alter the layout to make it comply with those.
I've also spoken to a couple of estate agents about the potential effects on the value. All are saying that they couldn't market the property counting the loft rooms as habitable rooms. So that effectively turns it from being a 3 bed house to 1 bed in estate agents listings and on Rightmove etc. Various opinions on value, one said -20k per bedroom, another said it might not make much difference.
Vendor is maintaining that it didn't need approval as was pre 1985 building regs changes, which is kind of backed up by the surveyor.
I've also spoken to a couple of estate agents about the potential effects on the value. All are saying that they couldn't market the property counting the loft rooms as habitable rooms. So that effectively turns it from being a 3 bed house to 1 bed in estate agents listings and on Rightmove etc. Various opinions on value, one said -20k per bedroom, another said it might not make much difference.
Vendor is maintaining that it didn't need approval as was pre 1985 building regs changes, which is kind of backed up by the surveyor.
I telephoned Building Control again today. Now they are telling me that they lost all their paper records in a fire a few years ago, and don't have anything going back that far. So there's no way it can be proven whether or not structural plans were ever submitted/approved. Not sure if that's a blessing or a curse in this situation! They also said that couldn't/wouldn't regularise anything started pre 1985, which confirms what I'd already heard. So I've emailed and asked for that in writing.
To update on this - I'm teetering on the fence with it still. Have to make a decision to either pull out or exchange on Monday. Tried asking for a modest 10k reduction or contribution towards bringing it up to standard, got told to go forth and multiply.
I've now established that where there should really be steels across the middle of the building at 1st floor and 2nd floor level there is just a 10" x 3" length (3.6m) of timber at each level, supporting the floor joists.
Had a couple of builders look at it to give rough estimates (at my conveyancer's suggestion). One said 5k minimum, although he seemed to be very small time. Another more reputable one refused to offer any opinion on costs without seeing structural drawings to know what exactly needs constructing (not much use to me, but seems a more honest answer). What he did say was "it's been standing 30 years with no signs of movement, probably best to just leave it well alone... trying to do anything with it would be opening a can of worms".
If I wasn't living here already, and in love with the location, I definitely wouldn't be going ahead. But I work from home and have a huge amount of work stuff in the garage. So moving would be a big, expensive, time consuming thing (even assuming I find somewhere suitable to move to). I'd probably be looking at separate business and living premises to get what I need. Delaying has already cost me best part of 2k (extra months rent and structural engineers fees), if I pull out it'll almost certainly be another 2 months rent before I'm moved, along with the mortgage and legal fees down the drain. Probably won't get back my AST deposit either, without a massive fight. All in all, not buying could cost me getting on for 5 figures anyway, and I'll still be renting, possibly in a worse location than I am now.
I've now established that where there should really be steels across the middle of the building at 1st floor and 2nd floor level there is just a 10" x 3" length (3.6m) of timber at each level, supporting the floor joists.
Had a couple of builders look at it to give rough estimates (at my conveyancer's suggestion). One said 5k minimum, although he seemed to be very small time. Another more reputable one refused to offer any opinion on costs without seeing structural drawings to know what exactly needs constructing (not much use to me, but seems a more honest answer). What he did say was "it's been standing 30 years with no signs of movement, probably best to just leave it well alone... trying to do anything with it would be opening a can of worms".
If I wasn't living here already, and in love with the location, I definitely wouldn't be going ahead. But I work from home and have a huge amount of work stuff in the garage. So moving would be a big, expensive, time consuming thing (even assuming I find somewhere suitable to move to). I'd probably be looking at separate business and living premises to get what I need. Delaying has already cost me best part of 2k (extra months rent and structural engineers fees), if I pull out it'll almost certainly be another 2 months rent before I'm moved, along with the mortgage and legal fees down the drain. Probably won't get back my AST deposit either, without a massive fight. All in all, not buying could cost me getting on for 5 figures anyway, and I'll still be renting, possibly in a worse location than I am now.
elanfan said:
Why is the vendor selling? He is unlikely to be able to sell to anyone else as the agents would now be obliged to pass on what they know to a potential purchaser (and I'm sure you'd tell anyone viewing the property too).
You'll get stuck with this in future. Let the vendor sweat and offer £20k below on exchange day! Sounds like you'd virtually have to demolish to bring up to acceptable spec. Personally I think you'll regret it.
Vendor is selling this place along with his own home to pool his resources and buy something bigger/better for himself, hasn't volunteered what exactly, could just be moving to London I guess. He used to live in this place and only rented it out because he couldn't sell it at the time (not because of these issues, but because he was asking well over the odds back then).You'll get stuck with this in future. Let the vendor sweat and offer £20k below on exchange day! Sounds like you'd virtually have to demolish to bring up to acceptable spec. Personally I think you'll regret it.
It hasn't been advertised with an agent this time, which is part of my issue, it's not been on the open market for 10 years, and no one was aware of the building regs issues until now. Vendor insists it's a non issue due to the age of the works (and I think he genuinely believes that), but they've not tried to sell it under modern estate agents guidelines, and I think they've tightened up over the last 10 years. I've seen a fairly standard agent's questionnaire to sellers - first page: "has the property been extended/altered, does it have planning, does it have building regs approvals, if not why not?" Same questions that are asked by the conveyancers as well.
Vendor advised me weeks ago that they needed completion by end of next Thursday, or it will screw up a chain including 3 other sales (allegedly). My conveyancer only sent me the mortgage deeds for signing yesterday, and then told me it takes a week for the lender to release the funds after they're returned. So can't see how end of next week is possible anyway? If the price got renegotiated, then all the contracts and mortgage offer would need to be revised, which my conveyancer says will add significant delays to proceedings.
I have to say my conveyancer has been utterly crap, it's taken me a week of phoning daily to get any kind of reply out them, most of the delay has been caused by their sheer slowness.
Just to top it all off, I've seen an interesting place going to auction next Thursday (I actually viewed it months ago, but it was too expensive at the time). It could be a total basket case (I know it needs work doing to it, but at least the guide price reflects that) and I don't even know if it's mortgageable, although I'd only need about 40% mortgage. Of course, I've no way of knowing what it'll fetch at auction, could go beyond the guide range. It's be a huge gamble to pull out of current purchase to try and bid on something else, pretty sure I can't string things out for another week though.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff