RSJs, Fensa etc - lack of paperwork

[AnthonyL]

Trying to sell my house, an 1860 cottage which is one of a block originally built for the estate's farmers.

I moved in in 1983.

1) New kitchen but installers noted the chimney breast had been removed without any supporting structure. They got engineer to do calcs and builder to install RSJ, this was 1987. Conveyancers want Building Regulation Approval.

2) In 2014 had a small, non-opening PVC double glazed window put in at the top of the stairs to give a bit of light. Am being asked for FENSA certificate. "Builder" who did job says "I have always used Local Authority Building Control" (well be bloody well didn't) and that it is cheaper anyway to take out indemnity insurance.

3) The buildings are shaped in an extended | | ______ Road

So a number of terraced cottages facing normally the road and a couple of semi-detached at each end at right angles to the main block.

Access to the end ones, one of which is mine, is via a path which serves no other purpose other than to allow access to the front of the side properties and to the rear of all the other properties.

The whole block (apart from the road facing) is surrounded by a farmer's field.

There is nothing on any deeds that says there is access from the road and Easement Indemnity is being requested.

4) Don't get me on the septic tank/sewage arrangements.

So is that the answer to everything now - take out Indemnity insurance? Has common sense gone out of the window?

Should I "shop" the builders for the lack of compliance?

Is any of this stuff really necessary?

[tim...]

If you want to sell, the indemnities are, yes - they are the common sense approach.

If I were buying and my Sol said there are "legal" deficiencies with this property that need rectifying, I would walk if they weren't resolved one way or another.

The bugger is when some smart arse decides that retrospective permission is required rather that just an indemnity (as they did with my sister's sale).

tim

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

we used to do a letter of comfort that would cover some of that for ?200 ...

[The Natural Philosopher]

Should be automatic with structural surveyors report and a cuirsory glance.

In this case it is. This is just shit to get you to lower the price.

well get insurance.

:-)

Yes. Years opf socialism have seen to that.

Nope,

Nope. Tell the buyers it's 'voetstoots' and if they don't want to buy it they can 'voetsek'.

>

[Handsome Jack]

tim... posted

The missing BR approvals are not a legal issue. The authorities (or anyone else) cannot take enforcement action once a year has passed since the works were done.

I agree about the access pathway, though. As an alternative to an indemnity, you could ask the current owner of the field to grant an easement now, at your cost. You could invite the neighbours to share any legal costs. It would be a longer term solution to the problem too.

[Yellow]

I am no lawyer so can only offer you tea and sympathy.

I am selling my parent's 1970's detached house and have just been asked for a Building Regulation Certificate for the 1994 porch, which was not required when it was built, and to somehow prove the property has soakaways. How the heck am I supposed to prove it has soakaways?

I am of the view that some solicitors just do (some of) this to make it look as if they are earning their money, doing something, because it is very easy to ask questions knowing that the sale will still go through because someone will cave and buy the indemnity insurance to get the sale unstuck.

But anyway, when I was looking into the porch not having a Building Regulations Certificate, I was told that if you ask the local authority to look to see if one was ever filed you invalidate any indemnity insurance - which makes the whole thing even more bizarre.

When we bought the parent's flat a few months ago, where they have just moved to, our solicitous said that they did not have proof that the original building (which was knocked down to build this one) did not breach the covenants that came with the purchase of the land - I think I have that right - so did we want to buy indemnity insurance, as the seller was refusing to. We discussed it and decided that the odds of anyone ever coming after the residents for something so obscure and random was not worth the cash and if it did happen, well, we will have lost the bet.

So your choices are - buy the indemnity insurance or refuse to and tell the buyer if they want it, they will have to buy it. Or you could go halves? Otherwise the sale will probably just get stuck, with on one able to move on.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

didn't think you could own property without access from a road????? ......

[charles]

but sometimes it's only on foot. Vehicular access is different.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

[Tim Streater]

Are the gutter downpipes connected to the main drainage? If so, why would a house need soakaways? If your roof is draining into the main drainage, you'll be paying for that on your water bill, which can presumably be checked.

[Robin]

Oh yes you can.

You may be thinking of the fact that owners of "landlocked" properties can apply to the High Court for an "easement by necessity".

[Brian Gaff]

No unless they want to put up a block of flats! Its pen pushers keeping themselves in work and watching their backs. If it were France somebody would just shrug and hand over the dosh. Brian

[Yellow]

No.

It isn't, so it does. Or another non main sewer drainer solution.

We are not paying for it, and I have already sent the solicitor a copy of a water bill - but that does not prove the house has soakaways as against any other non-mains sewer connected.

[The Natural Philosopher]

soakaways are not necessaary. The houses going up here all feed a big tank that overflows into a ditch.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

SUDS

[Max Demian]

Do sewers have meters? If so, do they distinguish between solid and liquid?

[The Natural Philosopher]

No and they cant, but it is aoofence to dischare storm water into a public sewer without permission.

[tabbypurr]

That must be some of the planet's worst legal advice ever.

NT

[Tim Streater]

Agreed, it's perfectly possible to lie to the water cpy about whether your surface water drains into the mail drainage (not suggesting this was knowingly done in your case). When we moved in here, I had a video check done of the drains (discovering a fatburg just downstream of the kitchen), it was possible to correlate all the junctions in the pipework with foul drainage inputs. I.e. no connection to any downpipe. The water cpy was happy to remove the charge (which had been on the bill) just on my say-so.

If the downpipes go into the ground and don't flood out when there's a downpour, that's presumably evidence that there are soakaways.

[Yellow]

All I can say is that I am as sure as I can be that our house has soakaways and that is how it is currently left with out buyer's solicitor, together with a copy of a water bill.

Been a few days and they have not come back yet but give it time....