Building regs enforcement action
Discussion
I was going to start this by saying “long story short” but then I realised that doing my day job, involving highly time pressurised appointments, whenever anybody says that to me, what they actually mean is “long story that’s so short I might as well be narrating every volume of Lord Of The Rings to you”.
I moved into my current house in 2015. I performed all the usual due diligence - building survey, legal checks, all that jazz. No issues.
The house has a large, 25 sqm conservatory which has, at the time we moved in, a glass roof which at a guess was constructed in the mid-2000’s. At some point in time (perhaps at the time of construction) one of the previous owners brought down two 2x2m external walls which had separated the conservatory from the kitchen and a reception room in order to open up those spaces. It looks lovely, but it also seriously compromises the house’s overall insulation. Some of you will already know where this is heading, but up until about a week ago, besides turning my energy bills into Kryptonite, I was ignorant as to the implications.
As a result of the missus getting fed up of the house being cold in Winter, I got a company in - good reviews, locally very reputable, award winning FWIW - to install a lightweight, insulated tiled roof. I understood (correctly) that this would not require formal planning permission and I was assured that the roof would be fully building regs compliant and that I would be provided with a certificate. The work was completed in November and I’ve been chasing them for a certificate since then. I work 7-7 so I wasn’t present during construction and I trusted them to do the work, but in hindsight they clearly did not get the work inspected as they went along since no compliance certificate was forthcoming. Evidently they got sick of my badgering them and a couple of weeks ago they contacted the council directly and paid them to do the necessary checks to issue a certificate.
Inspector comes last week and tut comes out of his mouth every other word. They want proof the roof is safe, requiring me to get a structural engineer in. Fine, that’s not actually a problem. I’m going to invoice the building company for that expense.
However, that’s not the main issue. The problem is of course that the conservatory as a whole is not compliant. The council has no record of ever receiving a building regs compliance or planning application for the conservatory. The implication is that it was built as a permitted development, which would be fine except at some point somebody knocked the external walls/doors down to make it a (non compliant) extension.
I therefore have to remedy it. My options are to “convert” it to a proper walled, roofed, insulated extension, which will obviously involve bulldozing the existing structure including shiny new roof, which is not an option. The alternative is to reinstall the walls/doors to make it a compliant conservatory.
Had I not been ignorant, I would have clocked the unusual conservatory layout when we first scouted the house and instructed our conveyancer to do a relevant search, but I didn’t as I was none the wiser. There is no mention of the issue at all in the surveyor’s report, which I’m retrospectively surprised about.
The senior building control surveyor from the council who I’m dealing with had, amongst many other things, this to say about the situation in an email to me just now:
Finally, after interminable waffle, onto the question. What does informal action mean in this context? Truth be told, besides being guilty of not knowing a great deal about planning law, I haven’t done anything wrong and despite that I’m going to be out mucho doubloons. Which is fine, I can live with it. I don’t enjoy being threatened with unspecified consequences though. I have put that to him in my response, in somewhat more formal terms as well as asking him what “informal action” means. But it’ll take him ages to get back to me. Furthermore, am I likely to have any recourse to the conveyancer or the surveyor?
Cheers for reading this far if you made it. Jackson made the right call getting rid of that little ponce Bombadil.
I moved into my current house in 2015. I performed all the usual due diligence - building survey, legal checks, all that jazz. No issues.
The house has a large, 25 sqm conservatory which has, at the time we moved in, a glass roof which at a guess was constructed in the mid-2000’s. At some point in time (perhaps at the time of construction) one of the previous owners brought down two 2x2m external walls which had separated the conservatory from the kitchen and a reception room in order to open up those spaces. It looks lovely, but it also seriously compromises the house’s overall insulation. Some of you will already know where this is heading, but up until about a week ago, besides turning my energy bills into Kryptonite, I was ignorant as to the implications.
As a result of the missus getting fed up of the house being cold in Winter, I got a company in - good reviews, locally very reputable, award winning FWIW - to install a lightweight, insulated tiled roof. I understood (correctly) that this would not require formal planning permission and I was assured that the roof would be fully building regs compliant and that I would be provided with a certificate. The work was completed in November and I’ve been chasing them for a certificate since then. I work 7-7 so I wasn’t present during construction and I trusted them to do the work, but in hindsight they clearly did not get the work inspected as they went along since no compliance certificate was forthcoming. Evidently they got sick of my badgering them and a couple of weeks ago they contacted the council directly and paid them to do the necessary checks to issue a certificate.
Inspector comes last week and tut comes out of his mouth every other word. They want proof the roof is safe, requiring me to get a structural engineer in. Fine, that’s not actually a problem. I’m going to invoice the building company for that expense.
However, that’s not the main issue. The problem is of course that the conservatory as a whole is not compliant. The council has no record of ever receiving a building regs compliance or planning application for the conservatory. The implication is that it was built as a permitted development, which would be fine except at some point somebody knocked the external walls/doors down to make it a (non compliant) extension.
I therefore have to remedy it. My options are to “convert” it to a proper walled, roofed, insulated extension, which will obviously involve bulldozing the existing structure including shiny new roof, which is not an option. The alternative is to reinstall the walls/doors to make it a compliant conservatory.
Had I not been ignorant, I would have clocked the unusual conservatory layout when we first scouted the house and instructed our conveyancer to do a relevant search, but I didn’t as I was none the wiser. There is no mention of the issue at all in the surveyor’s report, which I’m retrospectively surprised about.
The senior building control surveyor from the council who I’m dealing with had, amongst many other things, this to say about the situation in an email to me just now:
building control dude said:
“Please note that due to the lapse of time we can’t take formal enforcement action but we will consider informal action if you fail to resolve this situation.”
Finally, after interminable waffle, onto the question. What does informal action mean in this context? Truth be told, besides being guilty of not knowing a great deal about planning law, I haven’t done anything wrong and despite that I’m going to be out mucho doubloons. Which is fine, I can live with it. I don’t enjoy being threatened with unspecified consequences though. I have put that to him in my response, in somewhat more formal terms as well as asking him what “informal action” means. But it’ll take him ages to get back to me. Furthermore, am I likely to have any recourse to the conveyancer or the surveyor?
Cheers for reading this far if you made it. Jackson made the right call getting rid of that little ponce Bombadil.
I would be amazed if there’s any building control department in the country at the moment with the resource to deal with a non-compliant conservatory.
The conservatory was non-compliant as soon as the original window/door to the garden was removed, as thousands will be all over the country.
The conservatory was non-compliant as soon as the original window/door to the garden was removed, as thousands will be all over the country.
"Informal action" 
Is that like formal inaction?
Given the circumstances I can’t see them signing this off even if you reinstate the internal walls, I’d just move forward and not worry about it. Seems pretty unlikely anything is going to get enforcement action of any kind and you would have time to deal with it if there was so not much point in preempting anything.
The most likely issue I can foresee would be if you come to sell and get asked some questions but that’s what insurance policies are for.
Is that like formal inaction?
Given the circumstances I can’t see them signing this off even if you reinstate the internal walls, I’d just move forward and not worry about it. Seems pretty unlikely anything is going to get enforcement action of any kind and you would have time to deal with it if there was so not much point in preempting anything.
The most likely issue I can foresee would be if you come to sell and get asked some questions but that’s what insurance policies are for.
You have opened a huge can of worms.
When you come to sell you will not be able to get indemnity insurance for this issue as you are aware and so are the council.
The roof will be highly unlikely to be proven safe by a structural engineer. The modular ones from the likes of eurocell come with certification.
There’s a good reason decent builders run a mile from conservatory builds.
Conservatories are without doubt the biggest wasters of energy outside of patio heaters in the world.
When you come to sell you will not be able to get indemnity insurance for this issue as you are aware and so are the council.
The roof will be highly unlikely to be proven safe by a structural engineer. The modular ones from the likes of eurocell come with certification.
There’s a good reason decent builders run a mile from conservatory builds.
Conservatories are without doubt the biggest wasters of energy outside of patio heaters in the world.
That sounds like an unfortunate situation. Formal action would be notice to remedy and failure to comply by the owner would mean the council could do the work itself and recover costs from you. There are unlimited fines possible under the Building Act for the person who did the work, but you are in the clear on that.
However, it’s too late for any formal action now. Informal action simply means verbal or written advice and their ultimate recourse is that
that they notify you the building is non compliant and this would be visible to a conveyancing solicitor when you come to sell, with a commensurate negative impact on value.
Although they can’t take formal action against the opening up of the building, it’s possible they could do so on the recent roofing works, so they could still insist on compliance here and all the necessary calculations and evidence etc. the builder who did the work is actually on the hook for this more than you are at this point. Their approach to this may depend on how willing you appear to be to remedy the historical breach.
In terms of liability:
The surveyor may have some liability but it depends on the quality of the survey. Also surveys these days are full of get outs for the surveyor, so look at your survey for the scope of what was covered and for any get outs.
Your conveyancer should have asked for copies of planning permission and build regs compliance, but only of course if they knew to ask. If there was no public record of the conservatory, how would they know? Check your documents for any questions asked of you or the seller about extension work done. Also check what the Land Registry document looked like (with the building outline) that you were asked to agree conformed with what was on site/what you thought you were buying.
My personal expectation is that the surveyor will have wriggle out clauses and the conveyancer will not have known about the extension therefore did not ask for evidence of compliance. So, it probably falls on you to bear the cost.
Ultimately you are left with the current situation. Your choices seem to be: live with it as-is, with a stain on record and a knock in future value, or go through the process of applying for a compliant alternative. I would try to get the advice of a good, reputable builder here to determine what scope there would be to re-use any of the existing works and materials to reduce costs.
I suspect your previous roofer was a cowboy who knew that process (no calcs) and compliance was an issue, which is why he ducked the certificate issue until he had your money. Your only practical comeback against him is if you can prove that compliance was part of the contract.
I would strongly advise showing willingness to work with, rather than against, the council to remedy and comply, in the event that you have to go through a formal planning process.
Good luck with it, sounds like a very unfortunate situation for you that’s going to involve significant costs.
However, it’s too late for any formal action now. Informal action simply means verbal or written advice and their ultimate recourse is that
that they notify you the building is non compliant and this would be visible to a conveyancing solicitor when you come to sell, with a commensurate negative impact on value.
Although they can’t take formal action against the opening up of the building, it’s possible they could do so on the recent roofing works, so they could still insist on compliance here and all the necessary calculations and evidence etc. the builder who did the work is actually on the hook for this more than you are at this point. Their approach to this may depend on how willing you appear to be to remedy the historical breach.
In terms of liability:
The surveyor may have some liability but it depends on the quality of the survey. Also surveys these days are full of get outs for the surveyor, so look at your survey for the scope of what was covered and for any get outs.
Your conveyancer should have asked for copies of planning permission and build regs compliance, but only of course if they knew to ask. If there was no public record of the conservatory, how would they know? Check your documents for any questions asked of you or the seller about extension work done. Also check what the Land Registry document looked like (with the building outline) that you were asked to agree conformed with what was on site/what you thought you were buying.
My personal expectation is that the surveyor will have wriggle out clauses and the conveyancer will not have known about the extension therefore did not ask for evidence of compliance. So, it probably falls on you to bear the cost.
Ultimately you are left with the current situation. Your choices seem to be: live with it as-is, with a stain on record and a knock in future value, or go through the process of applying for a compliant alternative. I would try to get the advice of a good, reputable builder here to determine what scope there would be to re-use any of the existing works and materials to reduce costs.
I suspect your previous roofer was a cowboy who knew that process (no calcs) and compliance was an issue, which is why he ducked the certificate issue until he had your money. Your only practical comeback against him is if you can prove that compliance was part of the contract.
I would strongly advise showing willingness to work with, rather than against, the council to remedy and comply, in the event that you have to go through a formal planning process.
Good luck with it, sounds like a very unfortunate situation for you that’s going to involve significant costs.
The bottom line is he has admitted they won't be enforcing against you and indeed they are time limited from doing so.
I'd probably sack off the council route myself as they clearly aren't going to help you.
Fwiw I recently sold a house which had a conservatory at the back. The conservatory wasn't open to the house but had no paperwork, it was slightly too tall and technically should have had planning and a build over agreement and building regs but it didn't have any of those. Noone cared, the buyer had a full survey and I didn't need to purchase an indemnity policy.
I'd probably sack off the council route myself as they clearly aren't going to help you.
Fwiw I recently sold a house which had a conservatory at the back. The conservatory wasn't open to the house but had no paperwork, it was slightly too tall and technically should have had planning and a build over agreement and building regs but it didn't have any of those. Noone cared, the buyer had a full survey and I didn't need to purchase an indemnity policy.
Obviously I know nothing about your layout, for example you might have kitchen cupboards right up to the breakthrough to the conservatory, but I'd be looking at putting some form of doors onto the access into the conservatory. Probably bi-fold or similar. Will certainly help with the cold weather part too.
From there you can show the planning department that the conservatory is once again a conservatory. Future house sale dilemmas then avoided. Believe building regs is an entirely separate thing from the planning but sounds like the structural engineer will get that part resolved.
From there you can show the planning department that the conservatory is once again a conservatory. Future house sale dilemmas then avoided. Believe building regs is an entirely separate thing from the planning but sounds like the structural engineer will get that part resolved.
Surely there is no such thing as informal action? Either they're doing something in a Statutory capacity or the thing they're doing has no legal standing. I'd be inclined to tell them you'd prefer the formal approach only and not to send any correspondence on the matter that does not have a Statutory basis in Law.
Your surveyor may not have been your surveyor, they may have been contracted by your lender, who has an interest in the value of the property and far more clout with the surveyor than you do. That may be an angle worth exploring. The Surveyor and your Conveyancer are the best angles of attack because both should be insured against the costs and between them this should have been identified.
I'm not sure there really is a hit in value on this, simply because the reason your structure in non-compliant is because people prefer it that way. The building regs non-compliance is around energy efficiency and climate change, which is way down the list of priorities when people buy houses. Where you're more likely to have issues is with the structural aspect of the new opening, but that can be made compliant by getting a Structural Engineer to inspect it and make an application only on that element.
Your surveyor may not have been your surveyor, they may have been contracted by your lender, who has an interest in the value of the property and far more clout with the surveyor than you do. That may be an angle worth exploring. The Surveyor and your Conveyancer are the best angles of attack because both should be insured against the costs and between them this should have been identified.
I'm not sure there really is a hit in value on this, simply because the reason your structure in non-compliant is because people prefer it that way. The building regs non-compliance is around energy efficiency and climate change, which is way down the list of priorities when people buy houses. Where you're more likely to have issues is with the structural aspect of the new opening, but that can be made compliant by getting a Structural Engineer to inspect it and make an application only on that element.
paulrockliffe said:
Surely there is no such thing as informal action? Either they're doing something in a Statutory capacity or the thing they're doing has no legal standing. I'd be inclined to tell them you'd prefer the formal approach only and not to send any correspondence on the matter that does not have a Statutory basis in Law.
Your surveyor may not have been your surveyor, they may have been contracted by your lender, who has an interest in the value of the property and far more clout with the surveyor than you do. That may be an angle worth exploring. The Surveyor and your Conveyancer are the best angles of attack because both should be insured against the costs and between them this should have been identified.
I'm not sure there really is a hit in value on this, simply because the reason your structure in non-compliant is because people prefer it that way. The building regs non-compliance is around energy efficiency and climate change, which is way down the list of priorities when people buy houses. Where you're more likely to have issues is with the structural aspect of the new opening, but that can be made compliant by getting a Structural Engineer to inspect it and make an application only on that element.
Energy efficiency may well have been way down the list in the past, but for most mortals it’s probably very much higher up now, as alluded to by the O/P in post 1.Your surveyor may not have been your surveyor, they may have been contracted by your lender, who has an interest in the value of the property and far more clout with the surveyor than you do. That may be an angle worth exploring. The Surveyor and your Conveyancer are the best angles of attack because both should be insured against the costs and between them this should have been identified.
I'm not sure there really is a hit in value on this, simply because the reason your structure in non-compliant is because people prefer it that way. The building regs non-compliance is around energy efficiency and climate change, which is way down the list of priorities when people buy houses. Where you're more likely to have issues is with the structural aspect of the new opening, but that can be made compliant by getting a Structural Engineer to inspect it and make an application only on that element.
Jonny Wishbone said:
Truth be told, besides being guilty of not knowing a great deal about planning law, I haven’t done anything wrong
Firstly, there's the usual confusion going on between Planning and Building Regulations. The issues you have raised fall within the scope of the latter - nothing whatsoever to do with Planning.As and aside, in terms of the 'not doing anything wrong', I know of one entirely blameless individual who found himself subject to an enforcement notice to demolish his entire luxury home in the Cotswolds because the previous owner had not built in accordance with the plans.
I'm working on another case at present where an entirely blameless single mother is unable to proceed with constrcution of a self-build home for herself because the previous landowner got the Planning wrong - she's stuck in limbo, living in a mobile home on a site that she can't build on.
Jonny Wishbone said:
They want proof the roof is safe, requiring me to get a structural engineer in...
However, that’s not the main issue. The problem is of course that the conservatory as a whole is not compliant.
However, that’s not the main issue. The problem is of course that the conservatory as a whole is not compliant.
princeperch said:
The bottom line is he has admitted they won't be enforcing against you and indeed they are time limited from doing so.
paulrockliffe said:
I'd be inclined to tell them you'd prefer the formal approach only and not to send any correspondence on the matter that does not have a Statutory basis in Law.
There are, of course, Sections 76 and 77 of the Building Act, which are not time limited.
Under normal circumstances, it would be most unusual (unprecedented, in my experience) for them to invoke one of these Sections for the reasons they've given so far, but possibly best not to provoke them by coming across all barrack-room-lawyer from the outset.
If they genuinely believe that the roof is not safe to take the loads imposed upon it, they have the statutory power under Section 77 to seek a court order allowing them to demolish it, and to charge you for the demolition. Although stretching things more than a bit, they might also make an argument that the excessive heat loss/gain engendered by the situation is 'predjudicial to health or a nuisance' under Section 76.
Having said which, I do share the general concensus that in practice there's not much that they can or will do, but I'd be interested to hear our resident Building Control Officers' views on the subject (edit: crossed post: Bobtail 4x4 has answered the OP's question, above, and Smokey Mow below... these are the two people I'd be listening to, on this thread).
Edited by Equus on Thursday 19th May 09:30
PhilboSE said:
That sounds like an unfortunate situation. Formal action would be notice to remedy and failure to comply by the owner would mean the council could do the work itself and recover costs from you.
this can only be imposed by a court and as has already been noted, this is not possible now due to the time that has elapsed.PhilboSE said:
There are unlimited fines possible under the Building Act for the person who did the work,
Fines are capped at 5000 for each contravention, however there would typically be multiple contraventions in relation to unauthorised works and non-submission of an application.PhilboSE said:
but you are in the clear on that.
The legal owner of the property is the person who is liable and when a property is sold, this liability would pass to the new owner. On a mortgaged property to the bank would also share a proportion of the liability.PhilboSE said:
However, it’s too late for any formal action now. Informal action simply means verbal or written advice and their ultimate recourse is that that they notify you the building is non compliant
Correct.PhilboSE said:
and this would be visible to a conveyancing solicitor when you come to sell, with a commensurate negative impact on value.
Not so. Only formal notices can be recorded on the land charges register.PhilboSE said:
Although they can’t take formal action against the opening up of the building, it’s possible they could do so on the recent roofing works, so they could still insist on compliance here and all the necessary calculations and evidence etc. the builder who did the work is actually on the hook for this more than you are at this point. Their approach to this may depend on how willing you appear to be to remedy the historical breach.
The two lots of works are separate matters and should be treated as such. As a pragmatist I would argue that by upgrading the existing roof to the conservatory you have already made improvements to improve the historic breaches of the regulations made by others. But you do need to show that the works you have done comply with the Building Regulations and for this unfortunately there may be additional work involved for you. Having looked at more than a few of these structure and insulation have historically been the biggest issues. The specialist systems such as guardian and Eurocell etc are all backed up by structural and thermal calculations to justify the thermal and structural performance of the roof and also the glazing frames upon which they sit. If the roof has been built by a builder then I would wager that it weighs considerable more than the "lightweight" solutions offered by the conservatory manufacturers and hence why Building Control are now looking for some form of reassurance that the it is adequate and doesn't need additional structural support.PhilboSE said:
In terms of liability:
The surveyor may have some liability but it depends on the quality of the survey. Also surveys these days are full of get outs for the surveyor, so look at your survey for the scope of what was covered and for any get outs.
Your conveyancer should have asked for copies of planning permission and build regs compliance, but only of course if they knew to ask. If there was no public record of the conservatory, how would they know? Check your documents for any questions asked of you or the seller about extension work done. Also check what the Land Registry document looked like (with the building outline) that you were asked to agree conformed with what was on site/what you thought you were buying.
My personal expectation is that the surveyor will have wriggle out clauses and the conveyancer will not have known about the extension therefore did not ask for evidence of compliance. So, it probably falls on you to bear the cost.
I agree, probably little benefit in wasting time hereThe surveyor may have some liability but it depends on the quality of the survey. Also surveys these days are full of get outs for the surveyor, so look at your survey for the scope of what was covered and for any get outs.
Your conveyancer should have asked for copies of planning permission and build regs compliance, but only of course if they knew to ask. If there was no public record of the conservatory, how would they know? Check your documents for any questions asked of you or the seller about extension work done. Also check what the Land Registry document looked like (with the building outline) that you were asked to agree conformed with what was on site/what you thought you were buying.
My personal expectation is that the surveyor will have wriggle out clauses and the conveyancer will not have known about the extension therefore did not ask for evidence of compliance. So, it probably falls on you to bear the cost.
PhilboSE said:
Ultimately you are left with the current situation. Your choices seem to be: live with it as-is, with a stain on record and a knock in future value, or go through the process of applying for a compliant alternative. I would try to get the advice of a good, reputable builder here to determine what scope there would be to re-use any of the existing works and materials to reduce costs.
I've met very few builders that can honestly say they know the building regulations and even less that would know the processed involved with unauthorised works. The vast majority know how to read a drawing done by others but have never picked up a copy of the building act, building regulations or approved documents in their life. I'd suggest you find a reputable architectural practice that have a good working relationship with the Council.PhilboSE said:
I suspect your previous roofer was a cowboy who knew that process (no calcs) and compliance was an issue, which is why he ducked the certificate issue until he had your money. Your only practical comeback against him is if you can prove that compliance was part of the contract.
This does appear to be the case, but that in itself would mean making a MCOL unless the builders are playing ball.PhilboSE said:
I would strongly advise showing willingness to work with, rather than against, the council to remedy and comply, in the event that you have to go through a formal planning process.
That's always beneficial but in the case of the past works at least the council appear to be acting ultra vires so the law is firmly in the favour of the OP, but there probably is stil a middle ground to be found.PhilboSE said:
Good luck with it, sounds like a very unfortunate situation for you that’s going to involve significant costs.
Edited by smokey mow on Thursday 19th May 09:32
I do enjoy this place, I’ve already got the full spectrum of replies from, chill, bro, blaze up a doobie to you are doomed with some really useful stuff in between.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have no interest in being obstructive and am happy to be guided by the council, whilst being armed with as much information about the process as possible. As some of the replies have mentioned, making sure any future property sale is as unimpeded as possible is a priority. The house remains desirable and if the best outcome is that this issue becomes a point of negotiation come sale time then I’ll be happy with that. I prefer knowing to the possibility of inadvertently duping a future buyer.
The roof is a modular system and comes with certification from JHAI. I have dozens of pages which include tech specs, material composition, deflection calculations, load tests etc. I imagine the issue will hinge on the integrity of the existing structure. In isolation, I believe the roof is fit for purpose. To be honest, massive ballache aside, if the roof is not compliant or structurally unsound, I’m confident that I will be able to get it remedied without huge financial penalty because I’d go after the building company, who are large enough that they can’t just disappear. I also took out their interest free finance for the express purpose of acquiring the added legal obligations this confers on them.
I agree with you and this is the route I think I’m going to pursue. It solves the historical issue of the not-conservatory/not-extension and would entirely eliminate the heat loss issue. With energy prices going orbital I might even make my money back in a few months.
Thank you for taking the time to compose a detailed reply. You are right the conveyancer could not have known about this issue unless they were informed by either me or the surveyor. There is no mention of the conservatories (the other one is compliant!) in the survey at all except to note that they exist. I have made peace with the fact that I will bear the costs of remedying the historical issue.
I have an email which forms a quote, broken down in detail, including the following clause:
“All works to be fully building regulation compliant and on completion, receive certification from inspectorate.”
For the avoidance of doubt, I have no interest in being obstructive and am happy to be guided by the council, whilst being armed with as much information about the process as possible. As some of the replies have mentioned, making sure any future property sale is as unimpeded as possible is a priority. The house remains desirable and if the best outcome is that this issue becomes a point of negotiation come sale time then I’ll be happy with that. I prefer knowing to the possibility of inadvertently duping a future buyer.
lrdisco said:
The roof will be highly unlikely to be proven safe by a structural engineer. The modular ones from the likes of eurocell come with certification.
The roof is a modular system and comes with certification from JHAI. I have dozens of pages which include tech specs, material composition, deflection calculations, load tests etc. I imagine the issue will hinge on the integrity of the existing structure. In isolation, I believe the roof is fit for purpose. To be honest, massive ballache aside, if the roof is not compliant or structurally unsound, I’m confident that I will be able to get it remedied without huge financial penalty because I’d go after the building company, who are large enough that they can’t just disappear. I also took out their interest free finance for the express purpose of acquiring the added legal obligations this confers on them.
ozzuk said:
Probably simplest option is to reinstate 'external' wall. Perhaps another option would be external rated bi-fold doors, less intrusive than a wall and reinstates (I think) the conservatory as just a conservatory, therefore removing any issues when selling.
I agree with you and this is the route I think I’m going to pursue. It solves the historical issue of the not-conservatory/not-extension and would entirely eliminate the heat loss issue. With energy prices going orbital I might even make my money back in a few months.
PhilboSE said:
My personal expectation is that the surveyor will have wriggle out clauses and the conveyancer will not have known about the extension therefore did not ask for evidence of compliance. So, it probably falls on you to bear the cost.
Thank you for taking the time to compose a detailed reply. You are right the conveyancer could not have known about this issue unless they were informed by either me or the surveyor. There is no mention of the conservatories (the other one is compliant!) in the survey at all except to note that they exist. I have made peace with the fact that I will bear the costs of remedying the historical issue.
PhilboSE said:
I suspect your previous roofer was a cowboy who knew that process (no calcs) and compliance was an issue, which is why he ducked the certificate issue until he had your money. Your only practical comeback against him is if you can prove that compliance was part of the contract.
I have an email which forms a quote, broken down in detail, including the following clause:
“All works to be fully building regulation compliant and on completion, receive certification from inspectorate.”
Scolmore said:
Believe building regs is an entirely separate thing from the planning but sounds like the structural engineer will get that part resolved.
On this specific point, how much of an issue would it be for me if, for example the engineer found the structure to be safe but for whatever reason (perhaps a technicality) the council refused to certify?
Jonny Wishbone said:
On this specific point, how much of an issue would it be for me if, for example the engineer found the structure to be safe but for whatever reason (perhaps a technicality) the council refused to certify?
Planning and building regulations are completely separate and there is no overlap between the departments or the legislation they enforce.
If you can prove to building control that the works are compliant with the building regulations then they will accordingly issue you with a regularisation certificate.
This doesn’t stop the planning department coming after you at a later date for any breaches of planning permission though.
smokey mow said:
I'd suggest you find a reputable architectural practice that have a good working relationship with the Council.
Thank you, I have noted and will consider this suggestion.
spitfire-ian said:
Jonny Wishbone said:
I have dozens of pages which include tech specs, material composition, deflection calculations, load tests etc.
Have you shown these to BC? That might be all they're after regarding the roof.
Yes, when the junior inspector came he asked me to email all the docs I possess to the generic council building control address, which I did. I then got an email from the senior inspector from his own work email asking for exactly the same. So I guess he didn’t see my other email. I have resent.
It’s a Warmroof Pro system, if that means anything to anyone.
Edited by Jonny Wishbone on Thursday 19th May 10:05
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff