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

We are buying a house with a garage extension but apparently no
building regulations consent for the extension.
Any advice will be appreciated.

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 ;-) ---

"drona" wrote in message
om...
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.

You shouldn't be paying for this, the vendor should. It was they that
abused the rules.

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.

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.

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.

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

x-no-archive: yes
Colin Wilson wrote in message
t...
We are buying a house with a garage extension but apparently no
building regulations consent for the extension.
Any advice will be appreciated.

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 :-}

Yes - after 4 yrs it's untouchable. No guarantee it's been built properly,
of course.

On 13 Jul 2004 09:47:24 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named
(drona) randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

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,

I think it's safe and everything, but
I am thinking of potential problem when we come to selling the house.

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
a piece of this, just how far from the pack have you strayed?"'

"Hugo Nebula" wrote in message
...
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.

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 ?

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:44:33 +0100, Colin Wilson wrote:

We are buying a house with a garage extension but apparently no
building regulations consent for the extension.
Any advice will be appreciated.

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 :-}

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.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:31:18 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

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.

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.



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

Peter Crosland wrote:

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.

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

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:40:25 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named
"G&M" randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

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 ?

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
a piece of this, just how far from the pack have you strayed?"'

(Anna Kettle) wrote in message ...
Peter Crosland wrote:

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.

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

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

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

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.

Peter Crosland wrote:
Only material facts that you know about surely. It rather suggests
that the less you know about the house you're buying the better!

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.

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

--
Chris Green

"Colin Wilson" wrote in message
t...
We are buying a house with a garage extension but apparently no
building regulations consent for the extension.
Any advice will be appreciated.

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 :-}

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.