Building regs liability

chris French wrote:

Well heres a few things of note from 2000 building regs
- a structure that is not to regulations can be ordered to be pulled down provided that a notices is issued withn twelve months of te completein of that work.
Interesting Because completion is defined by the issueance of a building control certificate.....;)
- Bulding regulations do NOT apply to existing structures. They apply to BUILDING WORK which is defined as
Erection or extension of a building
Material alteration of a bulding, controlled service, or fitting (e.g.. fitting a new boiler, new windows etc.)
The provision of such as above (e.g. installation of a CH system)
Work when a material change of use is to take place. I take this to mean that e.g. converting a farmhouse to holiday flats, any or all of the work is covered.
Insertion of insulating material into cavity walls, Odd that they had to make a special case of that one.
Underpinning of a building. That's odd too.
Anwyay, in addition to that things like car ports are normally exempt from control.
Planning is anoher mater. Unplanned erections (sic!) may be required to be removed by the council. However I am fairly sure there is a statute of limitations on these: After 12 years its assumed no one really mnonded after all.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A collegue had an issue with a window which had been fitted into a gable end without planning permission by previous occupiers more than 12 years before. Planning people said they could not insist on anything being done to it at this late stage, but for planning purposes it was effectively not there so it could not be used as a reason to prevent the neighbour building an extension which had a solid brick wall 2 inches from it. However, the colleague could try applying for retrospective planning permission which if granted would then give it the requesit status to prevent any such extension, and if refused, the situation simply remained unchanged.
--
Andrew Gabriel

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sounds like an urban myth to me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This was to control the cowboys who were injecting totally unsuitable buildings.

4 years. Then it's legit. Just pay the fee.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:18:17 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named
keyboard and produced:

Under the Magistrate's Act (IIRC), an action for a breach of the Building Act or the Building Regulations can only be taken within 6 months of the alleged offence being committed.
Under S36 of the Building Act 1984, a notice to remove or alter the work can only be served within 12 months of the contravention.
Under the Building Regulations, a regularisation certificate can only be applied for any work that commenced after Nov 1985.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So basically, the local authority can do nothing after 12 months anyway?
That's useful, as I'm still waiting to hear back from our solicitor regarding the status of works that was done at the property we are buying.
In itself I'm not greatly concerned about this, our only real concern was being left open to any potential action in the future (it's a G11 listed building as well, so there is the issue of listed building consent of course, but AFAIK, the work predates that anyway, so should isn't an issue)
--
Chris French, Leeds

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would get that proven though (should be details in the listing document) as there is no time limit on prosecuting illegal changes to listed buildings.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

Yes, I realised that. One of the reasons we raised the issue.
The local conservation officer (or whatever they are called) has visited the property before, it's unlikely the works would have passed unnoticed by him I should think.
--
Chris French, Leeds

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

document)
Give him a phone or visit before you buy just to check he is happy. Unfortunately getting them to put this in writing can be like the proverbial blood out of a stone so use one of those voice recorders hidden in your pocket.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That won't help you when it ends up in court - a covert tape recording not made within the bounds of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act isn't admissible and would probably land you in trouble.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

proverbial
It's fine when made on your own property - as this would be. Comes under the survellance act that makes CCTV recordings from your house legal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If the building is listed then there is no time limit as far as enforcement is concerned. Even if unauthorised work was done by a previous owner the current owner can be forced to undo it at his cost. Also remember doing any unauthrised work to a listed building is a criminal offence as well.
Peter Crosland
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter Crosland wrote:

I say not.
he solicitors arewell within their rights to pint these things out, but once pointed out they ae legaly unassialble. Its between the two actual parties to decide wheher to proceed on that basis or not. You cannot sue someone who has said 'that may not be to building regs' if it turns out it isn't.
Only someone who failed to exercise due diligence in etsblashing whether it was or not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:06:32 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named
keyboard and produced:

IANAL, but IMHO these indemnity policies seem to be a rip-off. They only seem to cover a risk that doesn't exist.
The only 'risk' is if the work is so dangerous that the Council take out an injunction to pull down or otherwise alter the work. However, this is so rare, I've not even heard of this being done, much less taken one out.
There are other provisions of the Building Act relating to dangerous buildings, but these apply to any building whether or not any work was carried out.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.