Building Certificate from 2001

[Mrr T]

Since the question is from a solicitor I will post here.

Selling my house and after a long period had agree exchange and completion a week on Monday.

Yesterday email from my solicitors saying the other side are asking for a building certificate for an extension I had built in 2001.

Background. When I bought the house layout was odd. Access to the utility room was from the living room. I applied and received planning permission for a small 3m x1.8m single story lean to extension which allowed access from the kitchen.

Built by a one man builder called from memory Frank. Cannot remember any thing else.

Looking on the web it seems pre 2013 issuing certificates was different in every council, with many not issuing anything for most work unless asked. Nothing on the building control web site for my house of or any other house locally. So maybe they did not issue them or the information is to old.

Any suggested, constructive hopefully, welcome.

[BertBert]

If you don't have one then you can't produce it (#obvs).
If the buyer is really concerned, this may be one of those things that can be solved with a very cheap indemnity insurance.

[E-bmw]

BertBert said:

If you don't have one then you can't produce it (#obvs).
If the buyer is really concerned, this may be one of those things that can be solved with a very cheap indemnity insurance.

^^^^ Wot 'e said.

Unfortunately they are the stupidest insurance policy in the world & one you can't actually claim on but they are a conveyancing solicitors go-to for these situations.

I had to do one with my sale even though planning wasn't needed or available for a rear porch done on my property over 25 years beforehand.

Mrs E also had to do one for her previous sale to cover a conservatory with full paperwork that also didn't need planning & was over 15 years old.

Generally cost around £200 each.

[mr rusty]

Since an indemnity is only of benefit to the buyer, and it only indemnifies against the local authority taking action, it is a total waste of money because the extension is long past any period when enforcement could be taken.

Just say "there isn't one". If the buyer wants the house he can 1) have a survey or 2) get an indemnity if it pleases his mortgage company. Personally unless I was absolutely desperate to sell right now, I would call the buyers bluff.

[smokey mow]

Mrr T said:

Looking on the web it seems pre 2013 issuing certificates was different in every council, with many not issuing anything for most work unless asked. Nothing on the building control web site for my house of or any other house locally. So maybe they did not issue them or the information is to old.

Most LA’s were still using microfiche to archive records in 2001. Start by phoning and asking but they may not have a copy since statute only requires them to retain 15years of records.

[mr rusty]

Careful contacting the authority - if you do that it prohibits subsequently taking out an indemnity, because you can't indemnify agaisnt the LA discovering a breach they are already informed about. See my post above - it's all academic as long past any period for any sort of enforcement. It's built. It hasn't fallen down in 20 years. Tell the buyer to just decide if he wants it or not.

[smokey mow]

mr rusty said:

Careful contacting the authority - if you do that it prohibits subsequently taking out an indemnity, because you can't indemnify agaisnt the LA discovering a breach they are already informed about. See my post above - it's all academic as long past any period for any sort of enforcement. It's built. It hasn't fallen down in 20 years. Tell the buyer to just decide if he wants it or not.

Indemnity insurance would be a complete waste of money as works done 23years ago is well outside the LA’s time limit for prosecution.

[E-bmw]

smokey mow said:

Indemnity insurance would be a complete waste of money as works done 23years ago is well outside the LA’s time limit for prosecution.

Correct, but feckwit solicitors still insist on them.

[BertBert]

E-bmw said:

Correct, but feckwit solicitors still insist on them.

Agreed and if it solves the perceived problem and gets the sale done next week for almost no money, that's quite a good outcome.

[Alex_225]

I feel your pain OP, we sold up in September last year and the solicitors ask for all sorts of stuff by default, whether it's relevant or not. Some of it makes things feel pretty panicky!

If you don't have it, just relay that to your solicitor and leave at that. They'll likely not pull out, may take out indemnity but as said it's been up long enough to not be an issue or have to be taken down.

I got asked for an electrical certificate, which I did eventually locate but I was going to have to go with the, 'I don't have one' option'.

I guess it's solicitors covering all basis and then making recommendations to buyers. Much of which you have to be practical about.

[MrC986]

E-bmw said:

Correct, but feckwit solicitors still insist on them.

All the solicitors will do is cover their arses & ask a standard set of questions - they may even refer it to a surveyor if the purchaser has had a mortgage surveyor, & as a former lending surveyor I might in the past have recommended such a solution if asked...it is purely a paper one but it helps ease people’s concerns & is worth doing to get it sorted. As others have said, don’t contact the local planning authority if you are going to take an indemnity policy out.

PS the vendor has to pay for the indemnity..,it’s very little in cost terms relative to the price of a house.

[TonyF1]

Solicitors are acting for their clients not you. You say the extension was built in 2001 but have zero evidence to prove this is the case. This is what indemnity insurance is for.

[bladebloke]

E-bmw said:

smokey mow said:

Indemnity insurance would be a complete waste of money as works done 23years ago is well outside the LA’s time limit for prosecution.

Correct, but feckwit solicitors still insist on them.

Incorrect. Unfortunately feckwit non-solicitors on the internet aren’t aware that there is no time limit for injunctive relief if that’s the route the Local Authority chooses to take. The risk of enforcement action by that route is unlikely, but possible, and that’s what the policies taken out are covering off.

Admittedly, at 23 years old the lawyers in this particular situation probably aren’t being very pragmatic, but OP, as others have said, do not contact the Council. Chances are that at 23 years old, if a completion certificate had been listed in the buyer’s lawyer’s local search result, they wouldn’t be asking anything about this. So there probably wasn’t one. So again, as others have said, ask your conveyancer to offer an indemnity policy, and get the sale done. If you contact the Council then that route forwards would be lost.

Edited by bladebloke on Sunday 11th February 14:52

[E-bmw]

bladebloke said:

E-bmw said:

smokey mow said:

Indemnity insurance would be a complete waste of money as works done 23years ago is well outside the LA’s time limit for prosecution.

Correct, but feckwit solicitors still insist on them.

Incorrect. Unfortunately feckwit non-solicitors on the internet aren’t aware that there is no time limit for injunctive relief if that’s the route the Local Authority chooses to take. The risk of enforcement action by that route is unlikely, but possible, and that’s what the policies taken out are covering off.

Unfortunately feckwit post (non) readers are equally guilty of getting it wrong.

Read my previous post as that is what I was referring to.

In both of my cases I/Mrs E had paperwork to prove planning was not required.

[bobtail4x4]

E-bmw said:

smokey mow said:

Indemnity insurance would be a complete waste of money as works done 23years ago is well outside the LA’s time limit for prosecution.

Correct, but feckwit solicitors still insist on them.

I would be more worried about the quality of the work if not done under Regs.

[Foss62]

bobtail4x4 said:

I would be more worried about the quality of the work if not done under Regs.

I vaguely fell foul of the OPs problem when selling a house in 2004, having completed an extension (largely by myself) in 1994. The solicitor asked for a completion certificate but the LA confirmed that such things were not issued by them in 1994 for private houses. I had all the records of the building inspector visits and comments and the buyer accepted this.
However…the ‘Regs’ are changing all the time, to the point that some things that were compulsory just a decade or so ago would now be regarded as poor practice. There is also little control of ‘quality of work’ - inspections are about complying with technical rules. Far better to get a good survey of what is currently there, than worry about paperwork from long ago.

[bobtail4x4]

Foss62 said:

bobtail4x4 said:

I would be more worried about the quality of the work if not done under Regs.

I vaguely fell foul of the OPs problem when selling a house in 2004, having completed an extension (largely by myself) in 1994. The solicitor asked for a completion certificate but the LA confirmed that such things were not issued by them in 1994 for private houses. I had all the records of the building inspector visits and comments and the buyer accepted this.
However…the ‘Regs’ are changing all the time, to the point that some things that were compulsory just a decade or so ago would now be regarded as poor practice. There is also little control of ‘quality of work’ - inspections are about complying with technical rules. Far better to get a good survey of what is currently there, than worry about paperwork from long ago.

I realise the BCO isnt looking at quality of work, ( guess what I do for a living?) it was more builders like to cut corners when not overseen,
had one this week, dodgy "builder" had used 30mm concrete for foundations.instead of a more normal 150-200mm

[E-bmw]

bobtail4x4 said:

E-bmw said:

smokey mow said:

Indemnity insurance would be a complete waste of money as works done 23years ago is well outside the LA’s time limit for prosecution.

Correct, but feckwit solicitors still insist on them.

I would be more worried about the quality of the work if not done under Regs.

Who says it wasn't done in compliance with building regulations?

[Foss62]

bobtail4x4 said:

I realise the BCO isnt looking at quality of work, ( guess what I do for a living?) it was more builders like to cut corners when not overseen,
had one this week, dodgy "builder" had used 30mm concrete for foundations.instead of a more normal 150-200mm

Yes I take your point, but still believe that a lot of the relevance of the documentation disappears if something is still in good structural and functional condition after fifteen or twenty years.
After all, many properties have survived hundreds of years with foundations that you would fail. You are preventing poor and potentially dangerous practice in new construction - a very worthwhile job - but I bet there are many pre building control properties you would take a look at and happily recommend or live in yourself.

[Mark V GTD]

smokey mow said:

Indemnity insurance would be a complete waste of money as works done 23years ago is well outside the LA’s time limit for prosecution.

I presume you don't really mean 'prosecution' - that could only apply to unauthorised work (ie; lack of Listed Building Consent) to a listed building.