Hi all,
We're currently selling our house. We put in an en-suite in the main bedroom in 2002, however, we didn't apply for building regs for this (oops). The buyer's solicitor have asked us whether we have building regs consent for this.
Obviously we will say no, but I'm wondering what the consequences of this could be. Can you get building regs consent retrospectively? What other options are there?
TIA
you need to obtain a regularisation certificate
Should be easy.
1) Contact Building Control dept. at local authority for details.2) Submit regularisation application.
It might also be possible to get an indemnity insurance policy...
Your local authority building control department will tell you how to do so and how much it will cost.
Peter Crosland
Thanks v much Andy. I'll see what our solicitor says, but it sounds like it shouldn't cause us any problems.
Google this group as the time limits for Building Control taking action against unauthorised works have been discussed recently. IIRC, after a year, there is nothing they will do unless you did something really bad structurally.
Owain
Revised legislation under new planning law no longer allows for retrospective planning applications. You need to rip out the en-suite right now before you do anything else . Otherwise you risk a hefty fine.
In many cases this may be true. However, you have entirely missed the point, and the implication you make is very misleading. A few years ago a house purchaser had to have very expensive repairs done to their house as a result of bodged work by the previous owner. They successfully sued their solicitor for not warning them of the possibility that work had been done without approval by building control/planning permission. As a result the solicitor, or more probably his professional indemnity insurers, had to pay costs and damages well into five figures. As a result of that case all prudent solicitors now make sure that their clients don't buy property without obtain a certificate from the vendor confirming that all work has been done with the appropriate permissions. They usually ask for documentary proof of this. The bottom line is that without such proof a property becomes virtually un-saleable. The need to obtain documentation that regularises the situation takes time, and costs money, and may well mean one or more lost sales. Whatever people may think about the regulations it has become more crucial to comply with them because of this. In fact it may well be a positive selling point to be able to state this from the outset.
Peter Crosland
Surely a solicitor covers himself if he just points this out to the client, and it is then for his client to decide whether or not to proceed with the purchase. After all a client instructs a solicitor - and not vice versa.
James
He said building regs, I'm not aware of any change there over post-activity regularisation, though it won't suprise me if they do in the future.
Any he can only be fined (5000, and/or 6 months in gaol) in the first 6 (or
12 I forget) months after the offence. So he's safe on that front.Tim
I would agree in a limited case; most buyers get freaked out by lapses to notify Part A work (structural). Given the number of people who are clueless about Parts L,M,P or have just given up caring, as I've observed in my locality, I don't think breaches of "the lesser regs" will make much difference if the job was actually done properly. Otherwise the housing market would collapse.
The thing that the buyer will have to ask themselves is - what is the risk?
Part L breach - so what? - you might be loosing a few extra watts in winter.
Part A, structure - that's the worry, a bodge may not show any symptoms until much later and could be expensive to fix.
Part P, could be a health risk if done sufficiently badly, but an inspection will uncover most cases of idiocy. Unlikely to be hideously expensive to rectify.
Drains - same as structure - a leak may be undermining your house, but not so difficult to check.
And so on.
Tim
Some colleagues moved a year or so ago, and they were only asked about structural changes and changes to underground drainage they might have done. This would seem to exactly match the points you raised that are of highest concern.
It probably depends on the solicitor, and possibly anything the lender has specifically asked them to check up on.
I don't know whether you can get one as a vendor, but I'm pretty sure you can as a buyer.
I imagine it would be a cost/timescale issue.
It never did. You're confusing planning consent with buildings regs consent.
And therefore your advice is valueless.
Thanks Owain. I called our BCO, and this is exactly what he said - after
12 months, there is nothing they will do. The only option he offered was to get a regularisation cert.Spoke to our solicitor and he is very much of the opinion that indemnity insurance is a far better option. It's about the same cost as the regularisation cert (£150 v £120), but will be much quicker to arrange and significantly less hassle.
Thank you for your insight - most helpful. Do you actually know the difference between planning law and building regulations?
I had this discussion with my solicitor about planning permission that might have been needed for a conservatory. I argued that the conservatory was built >10 years ago, and therefore even if PP had been needed, no enforcement against construction or change of use could be made.
She agreed, but said that if it turned out PP was needed, then the mortgagee would want an indemnity policy anyway. Fortunately, it wasn't...
Ben
Which it was - wanna buy a house? :-)
I think this is overstating it. Much will depend on the client. You may lose a sale with a particularly nieve client, but certainly not all. Lets face it, if my solicitor came to me and said that en-suite[1] in a property I wanted to buy does does not appear to have building regs approval, I would instruct him to forget it and carry on regardless. Exactly the the same would apply to most of minor regs.
[1] Assuming said room was created by partitioning off some space in the room rather than wholescale structural changes.
Quite sensibly too. For an en-suite the BCO might visit the site and discuss what is to be done before commencement, will probably look at the underground drainage (if any) and then do a completion inspection. The fact that the water supply pipework is rubbish nothing to do with him, likewise all the cosmetic imperfections. And he cannot see that the shower waste goes uphill and has two knuckle bends on it. So although passed and approved by BC is nice to have it doesn't prove a lot.
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.