A thread is running over on uk.legal re the above topic. This may have
all sorts of impact on DIYers and others.

Apologies if this has been posted before.

The OP is reproduced below:

----------

Path:
border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.gig anews.com!feeder6.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!xl ned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!newsfeed.freenet.de!news peer1.nwr.nac.net!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!bo rder1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!loca l01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.eclipse.net.uk!news .eclipse.net.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:02:23 -0500
From: Postman Pat
Newsgroups: uk.legal,uk.finance
Subject: Building Regs compliance disclosure all the way back -
unworkable?
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:02:22 +0100
Organization: NoSpam



Recently, conveyancing solicitors have been checking on whether any
alterations have been done, and if so have they met BR.

An explanatory leaflet I have just seen from one solicitor says that
while a Section 36 notice could in the past be served at most 12
months after the work was completed, a test case in 2000 has changed
this and now ALL alterations, no matter how far back, can require
proof that building regs (presumably as they were at the time!) were
met.

They say that a mortgage lender will not lend on a property unless
this has been verified by a surveyor. He will presumably compare the
original builder's plans (if available) with the current state.

One can get insurance but these policies are conditional on the
Council's attention not having been drawn to the alteration, or to any
subsequent enquiry.

It appears to me that this is an unworkable system. Almost any house a
few decades old will have had alterations. Possibly trivial ones like
a rewiring, or walls removed, etc. If the lenders really won't lend,
this is really going to cause havoc.

----------

Practice the mantra, "It pre-exists my ownership of the property".

In reality, if the seller wants to sell, the buyer wants to buy and
the mortgage lender wants to lend - a way will be found. The system
will not be collapsing into chaos any time soon.

In practice Building Control don't do dawn raids to look at your
plumbing. All their time is taken up with preventing madmen from
creating fire-traps and self-collapsing buildings (and on simply
ploughing through all the applications and notices before them).

I would be much more concerned about planning violations coming back
to bite subsequent owners (or that previous building work was very
poorly executed rather than non-compliant).

Can you give us a link to the test case you mentioned?

wrote:

Can you give us a link to the test case you mentioned?

'Postman Pat' of UK legal followed up a similar query with the
quotation below, but it should be noted that (apparently) the
solicitor's web site doesn't give a reference, and the keen brains on
uk.legal haven't found it either, yet:

-----

The handout I have says (verbatim but typed in)

The power which the LA have to compel you to bring alterations up to
an acceptable standard is set out in s36 of the building act 1984.
Under that section they can serve a notice (a s36 notice) upon you to
carry out the remedial works and if you fail to do so, carry out the
work themselves and recover the costs from yo, but the LA cannot
servie the notice more than 12m after the alterations were completed.
In recent years it has therefore been assumed that provided the
alterations were completed at least 12m ago there was no risk...

However s36 has a further provision which states that the 12m
limitation does not prevent the LA from applying for an injunction for
the removal or alteration of works if they don't comply with the
building regs. This provision appears to have been overlooked in the
past but was highlighted in a case in 2000. As a result, it is no
longer safe to assume that a LA has no power to deal with old
unauthorised alterations.

The firm who wrote this is

http://www.gsfwsolicitors.co.uk/

-----

Presumably in order to be granted an injunction, the LA would have to
prove the building work was carried out subsequent to a particular
part of the building regulations coming into force.

As far as I'm aware, no part of the BR relating to dwellings is
retrospective - though this is not necessarily the case with shops,
premises, places of assembly etc.

Do we know what sort of building and building work was involved in
this test case?

wrote:

Presumably in order to be granted an injunction, the LA would have to
prove the building work was carried out subsequent to a particular
part of the building regulations coming into force.

As far as I'm aware, no part of the BR relating to dwellings is
retrospective - though this is not necessarily the case with shops,
premises, places of assembly etc.

Do we know what sort of building and building work was involved in
this test case?

No-one on uk.legal has so far come up with a cite of the case.

AIUI the real issue is selling a house; the mortgage lenders would
appear to want full certification for *any* work that falls under the
BRs of the time they were done, much of which wasn't required at the
time.

It'll have an impact on house sales, as solicitors seek to avoid any
liabilty for uncertificated work, one of them apparently having been
so caught out.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:44:07 -0000, "
wrote:


Can you give us a link to the test case you mentioned?

Apparently it is Cottingham and Another -v- Attey Bower & Jones (A
Firm) [2000] EGCS 48; [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 591; [2000] Lloyd's Rep
PN 591

http://www.cwpl.com/about/press_Deta...ode=2&PageNo=2

In Cottingham and Cottingham versus Attey Bower & Jones, a firm of
conveyancing solicitors was sued by the buyer of a secondhand
property for allegedly failing to find out whether building
regulation consent had been granted. The owners - who ran into a
structural problem after they moved in - won the case. As a result
conveyancing solicitors now rigorously check all consents on
properties for sale.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Terry Fields wrote:
A thread is running over on uk.legal re the above topic. This may have
all sorts of impact on DIYers and others.

Apologies if this has been posted before.

The OP is reproduced below:

----------

Path:
border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.gig anews.com!feeder6.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!xl ned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!newsfeed.freenet.de!news peer1.nwr.nac.net!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!bo rder1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!loca l01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.eclipse.net.uk!news .eclipse.net.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:02:23 -0500
From: Postman Pat
Newsgroups: uk.legal,uk.finance
Subject: Building Regs compliance disclosure all the way back -
unworkable?
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:02:22 +0100
Organization: NoSpam



Recently, conveyancing solicitors have been checking on whether any
alterations have been done, and if so have they met BR.

An explanatory leaflet I have just seen from one solicitor says that
while a Section 36 notice could in the past be served at most 12
months after the work was completed, a test case in 2000 has changed
this and now ALL alterations, no matter how far back, can require
proof that building regs (presumably as they were at the time!) were
met.

They say that a mortgage lender will not lend on a property unless
this has been verified by a surveyor. He will presumably compare the
original builder's plans (if available) with the current state.

One can get insurance but these policies are conditional on the
Council's attention not having been drawn to the alteration, or to any
subsequent enquiry.

It appears to me that this is an unworkable system. Almost any house a
few decades old will have had alterations. Possibly trivial ones like
a rewiring, or walls removed, etc. If the lenders really won't lend,
this is really going to cause havoc.

----------

No, it merely adds a few hundred to the solicitors' bills and a few
hundred to the cost of transaction as you take out insurance where no
paperwork exists.

Jobs for the boys.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:57:13 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

In Cottingham and Cottingham versus Attey Bower & Jones, a firm of
conveyancing solicitors was sued by the buyer of a secondhand
property for allegedly failing to find out whether building
regulation consent had been granted. The owners - who ran into a
structural problem after they moved in - won the case. As a result
conveyancing solicitors now rigorously check all consents on
properties for sale.

That was quoted on legal paperwork when I sold my flat a couple of years
back, they were demanding signoff as the flat was a converted house,
without any planing or building regs as far as anyone could tell.

My solicitors response back was basically don't be an ass, its been 25
years if there were problems they would have shown up by now, and that was
that.

Steve

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:18:58 +0100, a particular chimpanzee, Terry
Fields randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

However s36 has a further provision which states that the 12m
limitation does not prevent the LA from applying for an injunction for
the removal or alteration of works if they don't comply with the
building regs. This provision appears to have been overlooked in the
past but was highlighted in a case in 2000. As a result, it is no
longer safe to assume that a LA has no power to deal with old
unauthorised alterations.

Yes it is theoretically possible for a LA to take out an injunction,
but in practice it would have to be a serious breach affecting health
& safety, such as a death-trap of a loft conversion or for serious and
evident structural alterations. In my experience as a BCO for mumble
years, I've never heard of an injunction being taken out, much less
done it myself.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"