I have made an offer on a house which turns out to have a 2nd toilet installed without local authority consent.
What are the implications of this? If I buy am I liable to be fined for something I didn't do? Will it make the house difficult to sell in future? Is it necessary/possible to retrospectively seek LA permission?
Thanks in avance for any advice.
depends when the second toilet was installed , and where in the building it was installed
Get the vendors to apply to the LA for regularisation, at their expense. If the toilet was installed according to building regs albeit without permission then this is the easiest solution. If not, then I'd not be buying the house...
Dave
You can get retrospective permission. It would be a bit sad though if you want the house and in the meantime the vendor sells to someone else. If it looks like a rubbish job then you know it's got to be re-done. If it looks to have been done to a reasonable standard and you can verify that the WC goes to a proper soil drain then personally I wouldn't worry, though it might make a useful bargaining point.
If you want it, buy it. If the other WC is really a problem, you could always remove it.. if it was *really* a problem...
Is this internal and has it been installed without building an extension?
I would discuss with your solictor and local authority. Definitely worth using as a bargaining point.
Particularly important to insure that the installation does not contravene any regulations. (Before you sign the contract!)
You don't need LA consent to add a second toilet, I've installed a few ensuite toilets, showers etc and n o one has ever applied for permission, nor had trouble selling afterwards, see here:
Insist the seller gets retrospective approval at their cost. If they will not walk away and tell the agent who will then have to tell any other potential buyers.
approval ... but as I said in my previous post I would be more interested in how well the work had been done than the paperwork. You could built a really nasty second loo with an out of level cistern, misaligned tiling and uneven plasterwork and still get a completion certificate from the BCO if the fundamentals were right.
regulations but sometimes planning approval as well. Note the requirements for disabled access if it is on the ground floor.
Peter Crosland
You can either get it regularised, or get the vendor to take out an insurance policy that pays out if BC kick up a fuss. However, both routes require the installation to be good, with proper care taken over the drainage, venting, provision of hand washing facilities etc.
Get the surveyor to point out any obvious installation difficulties, such as mssing rodding points or missing soil stack ventilation etc.
It's not a reason to walk away unless you really need the toilet in question and it has been fitted very badly, or the location it is in installed in is actually not suitable for a compliant installation.
Christian.
abracad snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com posted
How long ago was it installed, and has anybody ever complained about it?
Don't you need planning perm to move your only toilet ?
Many thanks to all who replied. It seems it needs building regulation approvals rather than planning permission & the surveyor says no significant non-compliance was noted so I think the job was done to a reasonable standard.
The lawyer has suggested either an indemnity policy or getting retrospective approval - at seller's expense. As I'm hoping to move overseas in a year or so is the indemnity policy likely to satisfy future buyers?
PeteM wrote:
Many thanks to all who replied. It seems it needs building regulation approvals rather than planning permission & the surveyor says no significant non-compliance was noted so I think the job was done to a reasonable standard.
The lawyer has suggested either an indemnity policy or getting retrospective approval - at seller's expense. As I'm hoping to move overseas in a year or so is the indemnity policy likely to satisfy future buyers?
PeteM wrote:
In message , abracad snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com writes
I am tempted to say "For Gods' Sake" - if you like the house, and your surveyor isnt concerned, buy the *********g thing. The worst thing that can happen is you remove the toilet and make it into an extra storage cupboard or something....
I agree.
You cannot be prosecuted for the act of failing to notify Building Control if more than 6 months have elapsed since the work. So if was done > 6 months ago you are safe in that respect. Ask your solicitor that direct question, he should say the same. You can get regularisation done, but to be honest, the BCO probably doesn't give a rats about your dodgey loo - he's too busy wondering what Part P is about. As for insurance - maybe if it was major structural work - but if this is really someone stuck a loo in the cupboard, then it's silly.
Unless someone gets injured as a result, then prosecution may be possible using different laws. Against whom I don't know, probably the bloke who did the job or the then householder.
Does the toilet look like it's going to explode?
In the worst case, if you had the BCO around about something else, and he noticed, the worst conceivable thing he could do is make you fix any defects or remove it. That's pretty unlikely IMO.
Go by what your surveyor says. If in doubt, send him round again to take a longer look at the offending item. The one sensible thing that might be worth doing is to get the drains checked by a specialist - shouldn't cost a fortune. Brown stuff going into the soil is a more serious matter.
Even then - what's the worst? Re-lay the drains correctly - not a disaster.
Tim
I wouldn't be tempted - I'd just say it.
While one should investigate the *possible* downsides, these should also be looked at in terms of the likely outcomes and a judgment made on the *complete* picture.
Or one can listen to the jobsworths and do nothing and miss an opportunity with little downside and a lot of upside.
Tim, can you advise where I find this rule? I'm guessing it's in the Building Act 1984 but I don't have access to a copy at present and I need to advise someone else.
Cheers Peter
Something to do with it being a non-inditeable offence, can only be tried by a magistrate and the time limit is inherent with that? I don't know exactly - try googling the groups, someone else either in uk.d-i-y or uk.legal.* mentioned it chapter an verse a while back.
I've seen enough references to this fact to believe it *is* the case, but do double check your facts if you, er, need to be sure.
Cheers
Tim
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.