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


--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:
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 http://snipurl.com/mghw

HtH

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:35:21 +0000, Grunff wrote:

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


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...



--

..andy

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


Your local authority building control department will tell you how to do so
and how much it will cost.

Peter Crosland

Andy Hall wrote:

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...


Thanks v much Andy. I'll see what our solicitor says, but it sounds like
it shouldn't cause us any problems.


--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:
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


--
Grunff

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.

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?

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


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

Robert wrote:


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.

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

Peter Crosland wrote:


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.


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

In article ,
Tim S writes:
I would agree in a limited case; most buyers get freaked out by lapses to
notify Part A work (structural).

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.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Owain wrote:

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.

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.


--
Grunff

Robert wrote:

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.


Thank you for your insight - most helpful. Do you actually know the
difference between planning law and building regulations?


--
Grunff

James wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
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.


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.

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

John Rumm wrote:

[1] Assuming said room was created by partitioning off some space in the
room rather than wholescale structural changes.


Which it was - wanna buy a house? :-)


--
Grunff

Peter Crosland wrote:

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.

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.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:45:49 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
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.

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.

--
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]

Grunff wrote:
Robert wrote:

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.


Thank you for your insight - most helpful. Do you actually know the
difference between planning law and building regulations?

err, yes I do & you have to be wary of both & indeed listed building
consent.

It is possible that the said bathroom could have needed planning
permission and/or listed bldg consent. So can we explore the issue in
more detail please?

Poster has modified his bathroom - to what extent is unclear, where
does he stand after 3 years have elapsed?

1 building control - can't take court action after 6 months: can't
insist on regularisation after 12months, but could take out an
injunction (although has never been done apparently because there are
iffy legal Qs attached).

2. Planning control - possibly required if a listed building. What are
the time limits here for planning dept action? Is the statement by a
poster that retrospective planning apps are now debarred correct?
Local planners informed me some years back that they will not take any
action after 5 years have elapsed.

3. Listed Building Consent - almost certainly required if a listed
building or in a conservation area. What are the rules here?

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:43:40 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

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?

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


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 solicitor is paid to give advice not to dictate what his customers
do. He may wish to cover his backside, but that's another matter.

There is now so much regulation, that the average home owner wouldn't
have a clue if he had falled foul of legislation.

It's one thing if somebody does major structural work and renders a
property unsafe.

I seriously doubt whether sale of property will grind to a halt
because of a socket installed in a kitchen or even a bog installed in
an en suite.

In these areas the risk of problems is very low, which is why insurers
will offer indemnity cover and why building control departments don't
care after a year anyway.

The only people as buyers who would care about this are the
inexperienced first time buyer who might be scared off and the
jobsworth.


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.


No it wouldn't.

Most people don't give a toss about this bureaucracy.


--

..andy

On 13 Feb 2006 08:31:21 -0800, "jim_in_sussex"
wrote:


Grunff wrote:
Robert wrote:

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.


Thank you for your insight - most helpful. Do you actually know the
difference between planning law and building regulations?

err, yes I do & you have to be wary of both & indeed listed building
consent.

It is possible that the said bathroom could have needed planning
permission and/or listed bldg consent. So can we explore the issue in
more detail please?

Poster has modified his bathroom - to what extent is unclear, where
does he stand after 3 years have elapsed?

1 building control - can't take court action after 6 months: can't
insist on regularisation after 12months, but could take out an
injunction (although has never been done apparently because there are
iffy legal Qs attached).

2. Planning control - possibly required if a listed building. What are
the time limits here for planning dept action? Is the statement by a
poster that retrospective planning apps are now debarred correct?
Local planners informed me some years back that they will not take any
action after 5 years have elapsed.

3. Listed Building Consent - almost certainly required if a listed
building or in a conservation area. What are the rules here?

Listed building consent not necessarily needed - depends on Listed
Buidling Officer views on which aspects of building he deems needing
protection.

Have just given a whole list of proposals to our Listed building
officer including moving bathroom, reinstating internal walls to
original positions, expanding wc to shower room... and he was quite
happy with all of it "no need to apply for Listed permission" except
for satellite dish on rear wall !

Robert

robert wrote:
On 13 Feb 2006 08:31:21 -0800, "jim_in_sussex"
wrote:

Robert wrote:
Listed building consent not necessarily needed - depends on Listed
Buidling Officer views on which aspects of building he deems needing
protection.

Have just given a whole list of proposals to our Listed building
officer including moving bathroom, reinstating internal walls to
original positions, expanding wc to shower room... and he was quite
happy with all of it "no need to apply for Listed permission" except
for satellite dish on rear wall !


& what happens when jobsworth2 replaces jobsworth1 with a different
opinion & says you should have had LBC?