Retrospective building regs or Indemnity Insurance?
Discussion
Just in the process of buying another house, and the vendor has just advised (literally just a few days before we exchange) that the roof terrace off the back of the main bedroom, although it had planning permission, he 'forgot' to get building regs sign-off. It's been there since 2007 and is effectively just a timber terrace over the top of a flat roof.
The vendor has told me that he's happy to pay for some indemnity insurance, rather than go through the process of apply for retrospective approval which could take some time.
Can anyone offer any advice? I've no idea what to do in this situation and one of the buyers lower down in the chain is saying they may pull out if it takes any longer - I don't want to lose out on this house, but want to make sure everything is right.
The vendor has told me that he's happy to pay for some indemnity insurance, rather than go through the process of apply for retrospective approval which could take some time.
Can anyone offer any advice? I've no idea what to do in this situation and one of the buyers lower down in the chain is saying they may pull out if it takes any longer - I don't want to lose out on this house, but want to make sure everything is right.
Have been doing a bit of reading on this, and am thinking the indemnity insurance may be the way to go (if the vendor will indeed pay for it). I don't want to risk holding up (and possibly losing) the sale over insisting on some building regs sign off, if for a nominal amount I can be covered in case the council ever got wind of it. The balcony doesn't overlook anyone as its a very private garden so can't see anyone complaining. Guess it only causes a problem if/when we want to move again. We had a proper structural survey and nothing came up about the balcony being unsafe/falling down although they said they couldn't get to the roof underneath it. But didn't have any concerns.
Am I missing something? My only worry is why has the vendor waited until now to tell me he 'forgot' to get the sign-off....
ETA: just seen the planning permission for it and subsequent planning permission for a further extension that also incorporates the existing balcony so don't think there's anything sinister going on...
Am I missing something? My only worry is why has the vendor waited until now to tell me he 'forgot' to get the sign-off....
ETA: just seen the planning permission for it and subsequent planning permission for a further extension that also incorporates the existing balcony so don't think there's anything sinister going on...
Edited by Joyrider1 on Thursday 4th October 20:38
Yeah, it's just the building regs that I'm worried about - got a pic of the balcony in question that I'll try to upload later - but it looks like although it sits on the flat roof it has timber struts all round that are bolted to the lower wall (using metal clamps) so would imagine it doesn't have it's full weight on the roof. The only specified requirements I see in the planning permission and any building regs related to balconies on the web are that the balustrades need to be 1m high (which they are).
voicey said:
How on earth did you get so close to exchanging without your solicitor picking up something so important as this?
Our solicitors have been chasing it for a while but only just got the info back...Based on some of the comments on here I've sent back a list of questions for the vendor - thanks for your help guys!Pics of said balcony below (sorry, they're not the best pics)- ultimately I'd like to replace the balustrading etc at some point anyway for some decent metal ones...
Edited by Joyrider1 on Friday 5th October 15:49
Edited by Joyrider1 on Friday 5th October 15:50
So have had an update and obviously I have to take the vendor at his word, but he seems fairly trustworthy, but hey, what do I know...
The main structure is supported by the walls, not the roof underneath and all the joists are over and above the size required as per building regs.
A structural engineer wasn't involved upon the advice of the architect that drew up the original plans for the terrace - This is because the bedroom out of which the balcony is accessed is an extension on top of the old double garage, and as part of that extension they had RSJs installed and large wooden joists to support the whole area. According to the architect the size of the joists and the design meant that a structural engineer assessment wasn't neccessary.
Regarding the balustrading the building regs were followed and they do not move under force in preparation for the approval, which was never followed up...
The main structure is supported by the walls, not the roof underneath and all the joists are over and above the size required as per building regs.
A structural engineer wasn't involved upon the advice of the architect that drew up the original plans for the terrace - This is because the bedroom out of which the balcony is accessed is an extension on top of the old double garage, and as part of that extension they had RSJs installed and large wooden joists to support the whole area. According to the architect the size of the joists and the design meant that a structural engineer assessment wasn't neccessary.
Regarding the balustrading the building regs were followed and they do not move under force in preparation for the approval, which was never followed up...
Just been having a read on the "Planning Portal" website and found the following under the "failure to comply with building regulations" page:
"If a person carrying out building work contravenes the Building Regulations, the local authority or another person may decide to take them to the magistrates' court where they could be fined up to £5000 for the contravention, and up to £50 for each day the contravention continues after conviction (section 35 of the Building Act 1984). This action will usually be taken against the builder or main contractor, and proceedings must be taken within two years from the completion of the work. Alternatively, or in addition, the local authority may serve an enforcement notice on the owner requiring them to alter or remove work which contravenes the regulations (section 36 of the 1984 Act). If the owner does not comply with the notice the local authority has the power to undertake the work itself and recover the costs of doing so from the owner.
A section 36 enforcement notice cannot be served on you after the expiration of 12 months from the date of completion of the building work, but this does not affect a local authority's (or any other person's) right to apply to the Courts for an injunction for the same purpose. A local authority also cannot take enforcement action under section 36 if the work which you have carried out is in accordance with your plans which the authority approved or failed to reject within the statutory time of five weeks (or two months with your agreement) from deposit of the plans."
So if I'm reading this correctly then as the building work was completed in 2007, there's nothing they can do anyway, right? Or have I missed something obvious?
"If a person carrying out building work contravenes the Building Regulations, the local authority or another person may decide to take them to the magistrates' court where they could be fined up to £5000 for the contravention, and up to £50 for each day the contravention continues after conviction (section 35 of the Building Act 1984). This action will usually be taken against the builder or main contractor, and proceedings must be taken within two years from the completion of the work. Alternatively, or in addition, the local authority may serve an enforcement notice on the owner requiring them to alter or remove work which contravenes the regulations (section 36 of the 1984 Act). If the owner does not comply with the notice the local authority has the power to undertake the work itself and recover the costs of doing so from the owner.
A section 36 enforcement notice cannot be served on you after the expiration of 12 months from the date of completion of the building work, but this does not affect a local authority's (or any other person's) right to apply to the Courts for an injunction for the same purpose. A local authority also cannot take enforcement action under section 36 if the work which you have carried out is in accordance with your plans which the authority approved or failed to reject within the statutory time of five weeks (or two months with your agreement) from deposit of the plans."
So if I'm reading this correctly then as the building work was completed in 2007, there's nothing they can do anyway, right? Or have I missed something obvious?
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff