House purchase - Building Regulations

Hi,
We are buying a house with a garage extension but apparently no building regulations consent for the extension. I have been advised to take out an indemnity insurance to cover prosecution, but we are worried about buildings insurance. Do we have to declare this fact to the insurers that the garage was built without builidings regulation consent? The garage looks fine, I think it's safe and everything, but I am thinking of potential problem when we come to selling the house. Any advice will be appreciated.
Devang
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IANAL
This crops up fairly regularly on uk.legal and I think the usual answer is that after its been up 4 (?) years they can`t force you to knock it down anyway - it might be worth googling for it :-}
--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
x-no-archive: yes

Yes - after 4 yrs it's untouchable. No guarantee it's been built properly, of course.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd suggest asking your surveyor to specifically look at all the potential regs issues on this, and if any remedial work is needed, ask for it to either be done or paid for by the vendor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Someone I know got bitten when he came to sell a house he'd bought new some years before. It transpired that the door from the house to the attached garage did not meet fire regs. It seems the authorities can force a change on this point when a house changes hands.
I would aggree that the vendor should pay for any insurance. This happened in 2 cases that I've been involved with.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You shouldn't be paying for this, the vendor should. It was they that abused the rules.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The vendor should be paying for the indemnity insurance since they broke the law.
You are legally obliged to tell your insurers of any material facts. It would be wise to do that before buying. Personally I would walk away from the deal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If he's found the right house in the right place and the only defect is that the garage legalities are a bit complicated I think he'd be mad to walk away
Anna
~~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England |""""| ~ Plaster conservation and lime plaster repair / ^^ \ // Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc |____| www.kettlenet.co.uk 01359 230642
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@kettlenet.co.uk (Anna Kettle) wrote in message
Peter Crosland wrote:

Indeed, suggesting walking away seems remarkable advice. Failure to meet build regs is routine, and in most cases trivial or immaterial. With old houses, eg Victorians, compliance seems to be more the exception more than the rule, though whether its picked up by a superficial survey is another matter.
Buyers can sometimes get cold feet over it, but mostly they go for insurance and worry no more. Just a case of check the legal situation to ensure youre not in for any surprises, and check that whatever unapproved work was done is ok.
Regards, NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:31:18 +0100, "Peter Crosland"

Why?
This is an over-reaction to something that is a simple matter of covering some bureaucracy in one way or another.
If one adopted that attitude over house purchasing in general, very little would be bought or sold, since there are irregularities of one sort or another associated with most properties.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only material facts that you know about surely. It rather suggests that the less you know about the house you're buying the better!
--
Chris Green

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

On the contrary. If you just have the infamous "Homebuyers report", the title of which is calculated to deceive, it will not pick up any defects that may have occurred by botched building etc. The problem and the associated bureaucray will re-appear when you come to sell the property. Far better to let someone else have the hassle! Of course you can only disclose facts you know but in this case the OP does know them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, that's why I suggested that "the less you know about the house you're buying the better".
--
Chris Green

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 13 Jul 2004 09:47:24 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named devang snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (drona) randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

This 'indemnity insurance' seems to be another con; if the work has been completed more than 12 months, provided it's not dangerous (about to collapse), then no prosecution action can be taken by the Council for a breach of the Building Regulations. The insurance goes no way to showing whether the work complied with the requirements of the Regulations or not, and you could be faced with the same problem when you come to sell.
If I were you, I'd get the sellers to apply to Building Control for a Regularisation certificate, and let them do all the running around.
--
Hugo Nebula
'What you have to ask yourself is,"if no-one on the internet wants
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does this apply if I've submitted a building notice (for which my council won't issue any formal paperwork on completion) for a variety of work intended to be done, but haven't had the BCO in yet to inspect some work done over 12 months ago due to efforts being diverted onto other things. Are you saying that in theory I needn't bother calling him back ?
I'm not proposing not to do so but wondered what the legal situation is ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:40:25 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named
produced:

A completion certificate will be issued; if not as a matter of course, then if you request one.
It is a breach of the Building Regulations not to notify the Council within five days of completing the work, or at least five days before occupying the building (or the part of the building if extended or converted).
--
Hugo Nebula
'What you have to ask yourself is,"if no-one on the internet wants
  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.