Missing Building regs - indemnity insurance

[Bird]

I bought my house 6 years ago and have recently resold. The purchaser

solicitors have raised questions regarding the bathroom extension and wall that has been removed, in conjunction with the lack of buildin regs. This work was completed prior to my purchase (from the decor etc I would have assumed it was sometime in the early 70s), and was no mentioned when I bought the place. I'm now in panic mode as I don' know what I should do, and I don't want to lose the sale. Does anyone know: a) When the building regs were first effective? b) How long it takes to get a regularisation certificate, and what i costs? c) Where I could potentially buy an indemnity insurance policy

-- Bird

[MikeH]

My son was in a similar position when he bought his house a couple of years ago. I think he had to arrange indemnity insurance as a condition of his mortgage. It may have been set-up by his mortgage providers or directly by him, but either way it wasn't the vendor who did it. As far as I remember it cost him a couple of hundred quid. The vendors were out of the country, so maybe it was just simpler for him to do it rather than get them to deal with it overseas.

Mike

[meow2222]

This long after the event theres nothing anyone can do about it, unless its a dangerous structure, which is very unlikely. Since the council can force no action, indemnity insurance is effectively valueless. Normally buyers will want you to knock =A3200 off to pay for it, then the sale continues.

NT

[jim]

Scam alarm rings intensely at maximum volume!

Google this group for 'Building Regulations', 'Approval', 'Regularisation' and similar terms & you will discover that after 12 months nowt can be done by the local council's jobsworths or their legal beagles.

Up to 6 months after completion Council can prosecute; up to 12 months after completion it can enforce rectification then after 12 months it is as it is.

NB that's BRegs NOT Planning approval where the period is 5 years; situation is different if the building is listed or if it is in a conservation area.

HTH

[The Natural Philosopher]

Its a scam. But a legal one. You buy a couple of hundred quids worth of indemnity insurance and the solicitors let you sell the house.

That way they can't be sued and nor can you if the extension turns out to be made of green cheese

[meow2222]

how does that change things?

NT

[chris French]

I think Jim is talking about listed Building Consent, where there is no time limit on the council coming back to a future owner if work was done without LBC that should have had it.

It is of course nothing to do with the original question re BR though.

For the OP's original question, as others have pointed out in reality there is no need for this as the council aren't really in a position to do anything. But you need to decide how important keeping the sale moving is to you. You could say no, there is no need, but then there is a risk the buyers solicitor may talk them into not proceeding, or at least it holding up things.

However, do be clear if the work did actually require BR approval. When we sold our house last year, the buyers solicitor was wittering on about such an indemnity policy because the car port (30 years old) didn't have any BR approval. no it didn't because it didn't require any in the first place. But our solicitor would have happily gone ahead with it. However, pointing this out we never heard any more of it.

[meow2222]

yes, I didnt think a conservation area would change that.

NT

[dg]

Has there been a building survey done? If so does it indicate a structural problem, or one which will impact on the longer term use of the building?

If not, then ask the solicitor (via the buyers) for a profesional opinion on the implications of no building regulation approval for works not identified as being structurally unsound and older than 12 months. There should be no legal implications whatsoever

Whilst there has been no formal approval, and the fact that there is no problem with the work, then there would be no onerous implications for the buyer.

dg

[meow2222]

I cant help wondering if that might backfire, though its not something I've ever tried. The solicitor's answer would be that the council could order its demolition if it were found to be a dangerous structure, and thats sure to alarm any unaware buyer, despite the unlikeliness of the scenario.

I would tend to reply saying if you wish to purchase an indemnity insurance policy youre free to do so, though I cant think of any reason to do so. Then the discussion between buyer and solicitor would probably either focus on BR and PP issues, or not occur at all.

NT

[geoffr]

The cost of a building regs indemnity policy for a =A3200000 house would be between =A320 and =A330. The fee would only be in the hundreds if the policy was also for breach of planning as well. Any half decent law firm can arrange a policy in a matter of minutes either on line or by telephone with an insurance policy.

It is money for old rope as the reason the cost is so low is that there is no risk of enforcement. After a year the building contol dept cannot take action for a breach of building regs under the relevant statute. However, they can still take out an injunction against you at anytime requesting you put the work right and this is what the indmenity policy is for.

Despite this, I think I am right in saying that there has not been a single case involving a residential property where the local authority has taken out an injunction.

This only came an issue around 7 or 8 years ago following a court ruling.

the work was carried out adequently, as the indemnity policy would only cover him where the council took action and not just because the work was inadequate.

For the record the council have 4 years to enforce a breach of planning, and 10 years if there has been breach of a condition attached to a planning permission.

[dg]

The BCO (or more likely the council solicitor) would have to be satisfied that not only would the prosecution be likely to succeed, but also that it would be in the interests of the public at large that legal action be taken.

There would be very few instances that prosecution of works to a domestic property would be in the wider public interests. The only one that I can think of, is if the builder was known to be crap and was still working doing similar unauthorised work.

Thats a good point about the indemnity insurance only coveringing possible future council action. Most if not all buyers think that it insurers them against poor work.

dg

[jim]

SFAIUI, doing wrong within a Conservation Area can have similar repurcussions as to doing naughty things with Listed Buildings, ie reinstatement can be demanded without time limit. OTOH IANAL & others may be better informed.

There's 2 points of view to consider + widespread confusion of building regs with planning regs etc.

Seller (in this case the poster): wants to get rid of his house, so simple answer to his narrow Q re B Regs might be all that is relevant.

Buyer: wants to be sure he has good unencumbered title, so needs to be sure of covering all issues, so simple answer to Q needs added cautions to other possible rules.

Looks as if buyer's lawyer has only picked up on B Regs but beware........

[chris French]

In message , jim writes

I think that's right (a quick search and I couldn't Actually find a reference for it though), but the restrictions placed by being in a conservation area are much more limited - basically demolition and some changes, such cladding, dormers in the roof, some extensions. erection of larger outbuildings. Things like windows aren't covered unless the LA makes particular provision for this in the conservation area status.

And of course you need to notify them about work on trees.

most likely because LBC and conservation area issues don't apply.

[Hugo Nebula]

On 27 Aug 2006 15:21:09 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named "dg" randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

The 'public' can include the occupants of the house, so it could occur if the work had so seriously weakened the building as to make it dangerous, eg, removing the central struts of a trussed roof. If something like that were to come to light, then I suspect the Council may use its powers for dangerous buildings, which are more immediate and don't involve the High Court. I don't know if the indemnity policy covers that.

The other question about them is what do they cover? Is it just the cost of defending oneself against prosecution and any fine, or do they cover the cost of rectifying the non-compliant work?

AIUI, it also is null and void if any party notifies the Council of any unauthorised work. So if someone sought to Regularise the work and the Council found out that way about the dangerous building, a claim wouldn't be successful.

[geoffr]

However, you are allowed to make an initial enquiry with Building Control as to whether building regs approval was obtained for the works.