I have made an offer on a house which turns out to have a 2nd toilet
installed without local authority consent.

What are the implications of this? If I buy am I liable to be fined for
something I didn't do? Will it make the house difficult to sell in
future? Is it necessary/possible to retrospectively seek LA permission?

Thanks in avance for any advice.

wrote in message
ups.com...
I have made an offer on a house which turns out to have a 2nd toilet
installed without local authority consent.

What are the implications of this? If I buy am I liable to be fined for
something I didn't do? Will it make the house difficult to sell in
future? Is it necessary/possible to retrospectively seek LA permission?

Thanks in avance for any advice.


depends when the second toilet was installed , and where in the building it
was installed

wrote:
I have made an offer on a house which turns out to have a 2nd toilet
installed without local authority consent.

What are the implications of this? If I buy am I liable to be fined
for something I didn't do? Will it make the house difficult to sell in
future? Is it necessary/possible to retrospectively seek LA
permission?

Thanks in avance for any advice.

Get the vendors to apply to the LA for regularisation, at their expense. If
the toilet was installed according to building regs albeit without
permission then this is the easiest solution. If not, then I'd not be buying
the house...

Dave

In article . com,
wrote:
What are the implications of this? If I buy am I liable to be fined for
something I didn't do? Will it make the house difficult to sell in
future? Is it necessary/possible to retrospectively seek LA permission?

You can get retrospective permission. It would be a bit sad though if you
want the house and in the meantime the vendor sells to someone else. If
it looks like a rubbish job then you know it's got to be re-done. If it
looks to have been done to a reasonable standard and you can verify that
the WC goes to a proper soil drain then personally I wouldn't worry,
though it might make a useful bargaining point.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

wrote:
I have made an offer on a house which turns out to have a 2nd toilet
installed without local authority consent.

What are the implications of this? If I buy am I liable to be fined for
something I didn't do? Will it make the house difficult to sell in
future? Is it necessary/possible to retrospectively seek LA permission?

Thanks in avance for any advice.

If you want it, buy it. If the other WC is really a problem,
you could always remove it.. if it was *really* a problem...

wrote in message
ups.com...
I have made an offer on a house which turns out to have a 2nd toilet
installed without local authority consent.

Is this internal and has it been installed without building an extension?

I would discuss with your solictor and local authority. Definitely worth using
as a bargaining point.

Particularly important to insure that the installation does not contravene any
regulations.
(Before you sign the contract!)

--

Michael Chare

wrote:
I have made an offer on a house which turns out to have a 2nd toilet
installed without local authority consent.

What are the implications of this? If I buy am I liable to be fined
for something I didn't do? Will it make the house difficult to sell in
future? Is it necessary/possible to retrospectively seek LA
permission?

Thanks in avance for any advice.

You don't need LA consent to add a second toilet, I've installed a few
ensuite toilets, showers etc and n o one has ever applied for permission,
nor had trouble selling afterwards, see he
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144640#P46_8114

Insist the seller gets retrospective approval at their cost. If they will
not walk away and tell the agent who will then have to tell any other
potential buyers.

--
Regards from Peter Crosland

Online weather 24/7 at www.petercrosland.plus.com

In article , Phil L
wrote:
You don't need LA consent to add a second toilet, I've installed a
few ensuite toilets, showers etc and n o one has ever applied for
permission, nor had trouble selling afterwards, see he
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144640#P46_8114

That page is about planning permission. You DO need Building Regs
approval ... but as I said in my previous post I would be more
interested in how well the work had been done than the paperwork. You
could built a really nasty second loo with an out of level cistern,
misaligned tiling and uneven plasterwork and still get a completion
certificate from the BCO if the fundamentals were right.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

You don't need LA consent to add a second toilet, I've installed a few
ensuite toilets, showers etc and n o one has ever applied for permission,
nor had trouble selling afterwards, see he
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144640#P46_8114


There are circumstances when you do require consent. In most cases buildings
regulations but sometimes planning approval as well. Note the requirements
for disabled access if it is on the ground floor.

Peter Crosland

What are the implications of this? If I buy am I liable to be fined for
something I didn't do? Will it make the house difficult to sell in
future? Is it necessary/possible to retrospectively seek LA permission?

You can either get it regularised, or get the vendor to take out an
insurance policy that pays out if BC kick up a fuss. However, both routes
require the installation to be good, with proper care taken over the
drainage, venting, provision of hand washing facilities etc.

Get the surveyor to point out any obvious installation difficulties, such as
mssing rodding points or missing soil stack ventilation etc.

It's not a reason to walk away unless you really need the toilet in question
and it has been fitted very badly, or the location it is in installed in is
actually not suitable for a compliant installation.

Christian.

That page is about planning permission.


Don't you need planning perm to move your only toilet ?

Many thanks to all who replied. It seems it needs building regulation
approvals rather than planning permission & the surveyor says no
significant non-compliance was noted so I think the job was done to a
reasonable standard.

The lawyer has suggested either an indemnity policy or getting
retrospective approval - at seller's expense. As I'm hoping to move
overseas in a year or so is the indemnity policy likely to satisfy
future buyers?


PeteM wrote:
posted
I have made an offer on a house which turns out to have a 2nd toilet
installed without local authority consent.

What are the implications of this? If I buy am I liable to be fined for
something I didn't do? Will it make the house difficult to sell in
future? Is it necessary/possible to retrospectively seek LA permission?

How long ago was it installed, and has anybody ever complained about it?

--
PeteM

Many thanks to all who replied. It seems it needs building regulation
approvals rather than planning permission & the surveyor says no
significant non-compliance was noted so I think the job was done to a
reasonable standard.

The lawyer has suggested either an indemnity policy or getting
retrospective approval - at seller's expense. As I'm hoping to move
overseas in a year or so is the indemnity policy likely to satisfy
future buyers?


PeteM wrote:
posted
I have made an offer on a house which turns out to have a 2nd toilet
installed without local authority consent.

What are the implications of this? If I buy am I liable to be fined for
something I didn't do? Will it make the house difficult to sell in
future? Is it necessary/possible to retrospectively seek LA permission?

How long ago was it installed, and has anybody ever complained about it?

--
PeteM

In message .com,
writes
Many thanks to all who replied. It seems it needs building regulation
approvals rather than planning permission & the surveyor says no
significant non-compliance was noted so I think the job was done to a
reasonable standard.

The lawyer has suggested either an indemnity policy or getting
retrospective approval - at seller's expense. As I'm hoping to move
overseas in a year or so is the indemnity policy likely to satisfy
future buyers?

I am tempted to say "For Gods' Sake" - if you like the house, and your
surveyor isnt concerned, buy the *********g thing. The worst thing that
can happen is you remove the toilet and make it into an extra storage
cupboard or something....



--
Richard Faulkner

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:57:40 +0000, Richard Faulkner wrote:

In message .com,
writes
Many thanks to all who replied. It seems it needs building regulation
approvals rather than planning permission & the surveyor says no
significant non-compliance was noted so I think the job was done to a
reasonable standard.

The lawyer has suggested either an indemnity policy or getting
retrospective approval - at seller's expense. As I'm hoping to move
overseas in a year or so is the indemnity policy likely to satisfy future
buyers?

I am tempted to say "For Gods' Sake" - if you like the house, and your
surveyor isnt concerned, buy the *********g thing. The worst thing that
can happen is you remove the toilet and make it into an extra storage
cupboard or something....

I agree.

You cannot be prosecuted for the act of failing to notify Building Control
if more than 6 months have elapsed since the work. So if was done 6
months ago you are safe in that respect. Ask your solicitor that direct
question, he should say the same. You can get regularisation done, but to
be honest, the BCO probably doesn't give a rats about your dodgey loo -
he's too busy wondering what Part P is about. As for insurance - maybe if
it was major structural work - but if this is really someone stuck a loo
in the cupboard, then it's silly.

Unless someone gets injured as a result, then prosecution may be possible
using different laws. Against whom I don't know, probably the bloke who
did the job or the then householder.

Does the toilet look like it's going to explode?

In the worst case, if you had the BCO around about something else, and he
noticed, the worst conceivable thing he could do is make you fix any
defects or remove it. That's pretty unlikely IMO.

Go by what your surveyor says. If in doubt, send him round again to take a
longer look at the offending item. The one sensible thing that might be
worth doing is to get the drains checked by a specialist - shouldn't cost
a fortune. Brown stuff going into the soil is a more serious matter.

Even then - what's the worst? Re-lay the drains correctly - not a disaster.

Tim

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 00:57:40 +0000, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

In message .com,
writes
Many thanks to all who replied. It seems it needs building regulation
approvals rather than planning permission & the surveyor says no
significant non-compliance was noted so I think the job was done to a
reasonable standard.

The lawyer has suggested either an indemnity policy or getting
retrospective approval - at seller's expense. As I'm hoping to move
overseas in a year or so is the indemnity policy likely to satisfy
future buyers?

I am tempted to say "For Gods' Sake" - if you like the house, and your
surveyor isnt concerned, buy the *********g thing. The worst thing that
can happen is you remove the toilet and make it into an extra storage
cupboard or something....


I wouldn't be tempted - I'd just say it.

While one should investigate the *possible* downsides, these should
also be looked at in terms of the likely outcomes and a judgment made
on the *complete* picture.

Or one can listen to the jobsworths and do nothing and miss an
opportunity with little downside and a lot of upside.


--

..andy

"Tim S" wrote in message
news
You cannot be prosecuted for the act of failing to notify Building Control
if more than 6 months have elapsed since the work.

Tim, can you advise where I find this rule? I'm guessing it's in the
Building Act 1984 but I don't have access to a copy at present and I need to
advise someone else.

Cheers
Peter

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:51:37 +0000, Peter Taylor wrote:

"Tim S" wrote in message
news
You cannot be prosecuted for the act of failing to notify Building
Control if more than 6 months have elapsed since the work.

Tim, can you advise where I find this rule? I'm guessing it's in the
Building Act 1984 but I don't have access to a copy at present and I need
to advise someone else.

Cheers
Peter

Something to do with it being a non-inditeable offence, can only be tried
by a magistrate and the time limit is inherent with that? I don't know
exactly - try googling the groups, someone else either in uk.d-i-y or
uk.legal.* mentioned it chapter an verse a while back.

I've seen enough references to this fact to believe it *is* the case,
but do double check your facts if you, er, need to be sure.

Cheers

Tim

On 7 Dec 2005 13:43:50 -0800, a particular chimpanzee named
randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

The lawyer has suggested either an indemnity policy or getting
retrospective approval - at seller's expense. As I'm hoping to move
overseas in a year or so is the indemnity policy likely to satisfy
future buyers?

Indemnity policies are there to protect the solicitors from being sued
by you.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:51:37 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named
"Peter Taylor" randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

"Tim S" wrote in message
news
You cannot be prosecuted for the act of failing to notify Building Control
if more than 6 months have elapsed since the work.

Tim, can you advise where I find this rule? I'm guessing it's in the
Building Act 1984 but I don't have access to a copy at present and I need to
advise someone else.

A prosecution under section 35 of the Building Act has to be brought
in the Magistrate's Court. IIRC in the Magistrate's Court Act (or
similar) a case can't be brought more than 6 months after the date of
the offence, and IIRC case law has taken the date of the offence to be
when the illegal work was carried out, not when it was discovered.
The upshot being, unless the prosecution can prove otherwise, if
someone says that the work had been carried out more than 6 months
prior, any prosecution would be likely to fall at the first hurdle.

In S36 of the Building Act, the Local Authority can serve a notice on
the person carrying out the work to pull down or rectify the offending
work, but only within 12 months of it being carried out. An
injunction can be requested of the High Court, but these are IME very
rare and would only be for serious breaches. There are continuing
powers for dangerous buildings, and for means of escape from buildings
of three or more storeys, as well as powers under other legislation
(of which I know little).
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost.? posted

In S36 of the Building Act, the Local Authority can serve a notice on
the person carrying out the work to pull down or rectify the offending
work, but only within 12 months of it being carried out. An
injunction can be requested of the High Court, but these are IME very
rare and would only be for serious breaches.

Does this really mean that, once a built structure has been in place for
a year, it is effectively immune from any legal proceedings? By heavens,
the solicitors have managed to keep that quiet.

--
PeteM

[PeteM] :
Does this really mean that, once a built structure has been in place for
a year, it is effectively immune from any legal proceedings?

Immune from action relating to Building Regs non-compliance. Planners have
a longer reach.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

"Hugo Nebula" abuse@localhost wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:51:37 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named
"Peter Taylor" randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

Tim, can you advise where I find this rule? I'm guessing it's in the
Building Act 1984 but I don't have access to a copy at present and I need
to
advise someone else.

A prosecution under section 35 of the Building Act has to be brought
in the Magistrate's Court. IIRC in the Magistrate's Court Act (or
similar) a case can't be brought more than 6 months after the date of
the offence, and IIRC case law has taken the date of the offence to be
when the illegal work was carried out, not when it was discovered.

Thank you Hugo, you old Baboon ;o)

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:15:45 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named
PeteM randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Does this really mean that, once a built structure has been in place for
a year, it is effectively immune from any legal proceedings? By heavens,
the solicitors have managed to keep that quiet.

Indeed. Thank Cod that all solicitors are honest and truthful,
otherwise they could make a fortune selling worthless indemnity
policies to those poor saps who used their services.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

Hugo Nebula wrote:
In S36 of the Building Act, the Local Authority can serve a notice on
the person carrying out the work to pull down or rectify the offending
work, but only within 12 months of it being carried out. An

Are you talking about building regs? I was told by the BCO at the
council that they could force me to rectify something I had done a few
years before without consent. This was when I checkup up at the time I
was selling my house. This was a blanket statement as they had no
specific details at the time.

In the end the house was bought by a builder who was happy with the
situation as he was going to make further mods anyway and would sort it
all out then.

MBQ

"Hugo Nebula" abuse@localhost wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:15:45 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named
PeteM randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Does this really mean that, once a built structure has been in place for
a year, it is effectively immune from any legal proceedings? By heavens,
the solicitors have managed to keep that quiet.

Indeed. Thank Cod that all solicitors are honest and truthful,
otherwise they could make a fortune selling worthless indemnity
policies to those poor saps who used their services.

There's an interesting article on the RICS website he
http://tinyurl.com/82pxa about a case where a firm of solicitors failed to
properly investigate the Building Regs history on a property and had to
cough up damages. Apparently this is the reason why solicitors now take
such care about it. The interesting bit concerning this thread is that "as
time had expired (12 months s36 (4)) for action to be taken by the local
authority under s36 (1) and s36 (2) of the Building Act 1984, they took
action under the little used s36 (6) injunction proceedings, which has no
such time bar."

I'm not clear what s36(6) states, and what action can actually be taken
under the "injunction proceedings", but it would seem there is still a
threat of legal proceedings beyond 12 months if you do break the law.

Peter

Peter Taylor posted

There's an interesting article on the RICS website he
http://tinyurl.com/82pxa about a case where a firm of solicitors failed to
properly investigate the Building Regs history on a property and had to
cough up damages. Apparently this is the reason why solicitors now take
such care about it. The interesting bit concerning this thread is that "as
time had expired (12 months s36 (4)) for action to be taken by the local
authority under s36 (1) and s36 (2) of the Building Act 1984, they took
action under the little used s36 (6) injunction proceedings, which has no
such time bar."

I'm not clear what s36(6) states, and what action can actually be taken
under the "injunction proceedings", but it would seem there is still a
threat of legal proceedings beyond 12 months if you do break the law.

Yes, but the risk of a rebound means that local authorities are
apparently very reluctant to use it except in extreme cases. A Google
search throws up comments from various LAs; for example rhis from
http://www.dover.gov.uk/communitysaf...rcementPolicy-
BuildingControl.pdf :
"Section 36(6) of the Building Act expressly provides that nothing in
the section shall affect the right of a local authority €¦ to apply for
an injunction for the removal or alteration of offending work. This is
the option of last resort given the risk to the Council of costs being
awarded against it. Where a contravention occurs on site and the
building work has been undertaken in accordance with plans, which were
deposited and passed by the Council, the court on granting an injunction
has power to order the local authority to pay compensation to the owner
of the work."

It seems unlikely that an ageing but unapproved toilet or loft
conversion would provoke such a response. There are so many other things
for LAs to worry about.

I'd be interested to hear if it ever has done, though.

--
PeteM

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:16:43 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named
PeteM randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

It seems unlikely that an ageing but unapproved toilet or loft
conversion would provoke such a response. There are so many other things
for LAs to worry about.

I'd be interested to hear if it ever has done, though.

I've not heard of one being taken out in fifteen years as a BCO,
certainly none in the authorities I've worked for.

If it were used, it would only be for a serious breach of the
technical requirements. I certainly wouldn't bring a case for the
installation of a WC. I doubt it would be brought for a loft
conversion unless it seriously affected the structure of the building
(such as removing the struts from the centre of roof trusses) or was a
complete death trap (no enclosed escape route and no alternative
escape windows), and even then, only if the person was not willing to
upgrade the loft or make it safe.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

"Hugo Nebula" abuse@localhost wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:16:43 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named
PeteM randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

It seems unlikely that an ageing but unapproved toilet or loft
conversion would provoke such a response. There are so many other things
for LAs to worry about.

I'd be interested to hear if it ever has done, though.

I've not heard of one being taken out in fifteen years as a BCO,
certainly none in the authorities I've worked for.

If it were used, it would only be for a serious breach of the
technical requirements. I certainly wouldn't bring a case for the
installation of a WC. I doubt it would be brought for a loft
conversion unless it seriously affected the structure of the building
(such as removing the struts from the centre of roof trusses) or was a
complete death trap (no enclosed escape route and no alternative
escape windows), and even then, only if the person was not willing to
upgrade the loft or make it safe.

Looking at it from your angle Hugo, you're absolutely correct. But that
doesn't coincide with the way the courts see it. The question is not really
about whether law-breakers will be prosecuted by the Local Authority; it's
more to do with conveyancing solicitors (and their PI insurers) feeling edgy
about being sued if they don't investigate vendors' statements thoroughly.

So, to put this is in context with this thread, you're not going to be
prosecuted by the Local Authority for buying a house with a non-approved 2nd
toilet. However, knowing this to be the case you could get into hot water
if you tell a different story to a solicitor when you come to sell it.

Peter

Peter Taylor posted

"Hugo Nebula" abuse@localhost wrote in message
.. .

I've not heard of one being taken out in fifteen years as a BCO,
certainly none in the authorities I've worked for.

If it were used, it would only be for a serious breach of the
technical requirements. I certainly wouldn't bring a case for the
installation of a WC. I doubt it would be brought for a loft
conversion unless it seriously affected the structure of the building
(such as removing the struts from the centre of roof trusses) or was a
complete death trap (no enclosed escape route and no alternative
escape windows), and even then, only if the person was not willing to
upgrade the loft or make it safe.

Looking at it from your angle Hugo, you're absolutely correct. But that
doesn't coincide with the way the courts see it.

It's not so much how the courts see it either, I think: but how
solicitors see it. I think they see it as a traditional device for
extracting money out of conveyancing.

The question is not really
about whether law-breakers will be prosecuted by the Local Authority; it's
more to do with conveyancing solicitors (and their PI insurers) feeling edgy
about being sued if they don't investigate vendors' statements thoroughly.

The issue is not so much about thorough investigation, but what you do
with the facts once you have got them. Purchasers' solicitors often make
a big song and dance about building work that didn't get BR approval.
But how often do they tell their clients that the only realistic danger
- a local authority notice - can't happen if the building is 12 months
old or more? I even wonder how many of them know it. I didn't until this
thread.

--
PeteM

But how often do they tell their clients that the only realistic danger
- a local authority notice - can't happen if the building is 12 months
old or more? I even wonder how many of them know it. I didn't until this
thread.

I'd be more concerned about whether the work would have met building regs
approval rather than the chances of regulatory action. I wouldn't pay extra
for a house with a loft conversion with poor insulation and 3" joists, as
the work will be of unsatisfactory quality.

Whilst a building regs certificate is the best evidence of whether the build
was well executed, I'd also be happy with a report from a building surveyor.

Christian.

PeteM" wrote in message
...

It's not so much how the courts see it either, I think: but how
solicitors see it. I think they see it as a traditional device for
extracting money out of conveyancing.

The issue is not so much about thorough investigation, but what you do
with the facts once you have got them. Purchasers' solicitors often make
a big song and dance about building work that didn't get BR approval.
But how often do they tell their clients that the only realistic danger
- a local authority notice - can't happen if the building is 12 months
old or more? I even wonder how many of them know it. I didn't until this
thread.

I don't think you read the report of the court case I posted. A solicitor
was found negligent for not thoroughly investigating the untrue answers
given by a vendor and had to pay damages equalling the cost of rectifying
the unapproved work. That's why conveyancers now take the issue so
seriously. But you're probably right that they never explain there's
virtually zero chances of the council taking legal action, but then you
can't expect solicitors to be upfront when they can see £ signs, can you?

Peter Taylor posted
PeteM" wrote in message
...

It's not so much how the courts see it either, I think: but how
solicitors see it. I think they see it as a traditional device for
extracting money out of conveyancing.

The issue is not so much about thorough investigation, but what you do
with the facts once you have got them. Purchasers' solicitors often make
a big song and dance about building work that didn't get BR approval.
But how often do they tell their clients that the only realistic danger
- a local authority notice - can't happen if the building is 12 months
old or more? I even wonder how many of them know it. I didn't until this
thread.

I don't think you read the report of the court case I posted.

You're right, I didn't - sorry.

It'd be interesting to know more about this case. In particular, "as
time had expired for action to be taken by the local authority under s36
(1) and s36 (2) of the Building Act 1984, they took action under the
little used s36 (6) injunction proceedings, which has no such time bar."
I would love to know how the local authority came to take out an
injunction in 1993 in respect of alterations that had taken place
*eight* years earlier, under a different owner? Who told them about the
works? What exactly were the defects to justify such action? When did
legal proceedings begin? Were proceedings already in process when the
property was sold?

A solicitor
was found negligent for not thoroughly investigating the untrue answers
given by a vendor and had to pay damages equalling the cost of rectifying
the unapproved work. That's why conveyancers now take the issue so
seriously.

I think they always have done.

But you're probably right that they never explain there's
virtually zero chances of the council taking legal action, but then you
can't expect solicitors to be upfront when they can see £ signs, can you?




--
PeteM