I'm currently in the process of buying a two-bed maisonette in a 1900s
converted terrace house.

The maisonette is on the first floor and the loft of the house (the
loft being used for the master bedroom and ensuite) and we have been
provided with a copy of the planning permission from 1971 authorising
the conversion of the house into "one self contained flat and one self
contained maisonette" .

We've also been provided with planning permission for the enlargement
of a dormer window at the front of the house (in the loft) and the
formation of a new one to the rear (where the ensuite is).

However, in both cases we have not been provided with copies of the
building regulation approvals.

Our survey states that the flat probably doesn't comply with current
building regulations and our solicitor has advised that we request
further information regarding the status of the original loft
conversion.

The conversion works took place sometime around 1971 and therefore
clearly fall outside of the 1985 limit for obtaining regularisation.

The sellers who have been in the house for the last 5 years do not have
copies of any building regulation approvals.

In all likelihood, we're not going to see building regulation approval
for the conversion and we're clearly not going to be able to get the
works regularised - so what do we do?

It seems to me that we only have 2 options:

1. to walk away; or

2. obtain some form of indemnity insurance (at the seller's cost) re
the lack of building reg approval.

I'm really not inclined to walk away if I can help it, which leaves me
with seeking indemnity insurance.

As the conversion was done at least 30 years ago, I would have thought
that if there were any real problems, they would have come to light by
now. Indeed, other than flagging that the property "probably doesn't
comply" with current building regs, the survey states that there are no
obvious structural problems.

Therefore, the only risks seem to be (a) that the council come in and
tell us to make the property building reg compliant, and (b) we have
difficulties selling on in the future.

What are the chances that the council will come in and ask us to make
the flat compliant? And if they did do that, would the indemnity
policy cover us?

Could we sell the property with the benefit of an indemnity policy in
the future?

Any tips on how to deal with this, and/or whether this is likely to
affect a future sale would be much appreciated.

Thanks

wrote:

2. obtain some form of indemnity insurance (at the seller's cost) re
the lack of building reg approval.

Is there such a thing as indemnity insurance re the lack of building reg
approval ?


Could we sell the property with the benefit of an indemnity policy in
the future?

It isn't normally possible to transfer insurance cover to another person in
the case of other types of insurance such as life and property. Assuming
indemnity insurance re the lack of building reg approval exists, can it be
transferred to the next owner ?

wrote:
Our survey states that the flat probably doesn't comply with current
building regulations and our solicitor has advised that we request
further information regarding the status of the original loft
conversion.

The conversion works took place sometime around 1971 and therefore
clearly fall outside of the 1985 limit for obtaining regularisation.

Building regulations are not retrospective, you don't have to update to
the latest standards unless you are doing new work. If the work dosn't
conform to what the regs would have been in 1971 it is too late for
anyone to pursue the matter. So, I can't see what you are worrying
about. A case of an stupid jobsworth surveyor I suspect.


--
David Clark
http://www.publishing.ucl.ac.uk
$replyto = 'an.rnser.is.reqird'

In message .com,
writes
I'm currently in the process of buying a two-bed maisonette in a 1900s
converted terrace house.


However, in both cases we have not been provided with copies of the
building regulation approvals.

Our survey states that the flat probably doesn't comply with current
building regulations and our solicitor has advised that we request
further information regarding the status of the original loft
conversion.

The conversion works took place sometime around 1971 and therefore
clearly fall outside of the 1985 limit for obtaining regularisation.

Isnt there a period beyond which the council, (or whoever), can force
you to comply with building regs? Hopefully someone else will know.


The sellers who have been in the house for the last 5 years do not have
copies of any building regulation approvals.

They bought it 5 years ago, and you obviously want it now. This suggests
that it is fairly saleable, whatever the building regs situation.


In all likelihood, we're not going to see building regulation approval
for the conversion and we're clearly not going to be able to get the
works regularised - so what do we do?

It seems to me that we only have 2 options:

1. to walk away; or

2. obtain some form of indemnity insurance (at the seller's cost) re
the lack of building reg approval.


Or at your own cost? Assuming you can get it, I dont think it will cost
much, ( a few hundred pounds?). In fact, I probably wouldnt mention it
to the sellers, as they may get it and add value to the property in so
doing. ISTR a solicitor suggesting that building regs indemnity was
fairly easy to obtain, and ISTR she mentioned Norwich Union)

I'm really not inclined to walk away if I can help it, which leaves me
with seeking indemnity insurance.

As the conversion was done at least 30 years ago, I would have thought
that if there were any real problems, they would have come to light by
now. Indeed, other than flagging that the property "probably doesn't
comply" with current building regs, the survey states that there are no
obvious structural problems.

Building Regs. tend to deal with safety, (and comfort more recently),
issues, and they change all the time, so it wont be as safe as it should
be... probably in terms of escaping in the case of fire, or avoiding a
fall down a staircase, or through a window, and it may not be as
comfortable as it could be in terms of soundproofing and accessibility.
Therefore, the only risks seem to be (a) that the council come in and
tell us to make the property building reg compliant, and (b) we have
difficulties selling on in the future

See above - and the indemnity should remove the selling difficulties.
.

What are the chances that the council will come in and ask us to make
the flat compliant?

Slim to nil?

And if they did do that, would the indemnity
policy cover us?

I think that is what it is for, amongst other things/

--
Richard Faulkner

In message , Phil Anthropist
writes
wrote:

2. obtain some form of indemnity insurance (at the seller's cost) re
the lack of building reg approval.

Is there such a thing as indemnity insurance re the lack of building reg
approval ?


Could we sell the property with the benefit of an indemnity policy in
the future?

It isn't normally possible to transfer insurance cover to another person in
the case of other types of insurance such as life and property. Assuming
indemnity insurance re the lack of building reg approval exists, can it be
transferred to the next owner ?


Restrictive covenant indemnities seem to transfer OK, so I would guess
these would.
--
Richard Faulkner

wrote:

1. to walk away; or

2. obtain some form of indemnity insurance (at the seller's cost) re
the lack of building reg approval.

Indemnity from what? After 12 months, the building control department
have no power whatsoever over any work carried out without building regs.


What are the chances that the council will come in and ask us to make
the flat compliant?

Zero.


Could we sell the property with the benefit of an indemnity policy in
the future?

Some anally retentive solicitors may insist upon it (we've just had to
do this with our house), and in that case you'll just have to fork out
£150-£200.


Any tips on how to deal with this, and/or whether this is likely to
affect a future sale would be much appreciated.

Ignore the issue. If you want the house, buy it.


--
Grunff

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:41:44 +0000, Richard Faulkner
wrote:


As the conversion was done at least 30 years ago, I would have thought
that if there were any real problems, they would have come to light by
now. Indeed, other than flagging that the property "probably doesn't
comply" with current building regs, the survey states that there are no
obvious structural problems.

Building Regs. tend to deal with safety, (and comfort more recently),
issues, and they change all the time, so it wont be as safe as it should
be... probably in terms of escaping in the case of fire, or avoiding a
fall down a staircase, or through a window, and it may not be as
comfortable as it could be in terms of soundproofing and accessibility.
Therefore, the only risks seem to be (a) that the council come in and
tell us to make the property building reg compliant, and (b) we have
difficulties selling on in the future

See above - and the indemnity should remove the selling difficulties.
.

What are the chances that the council will come in and ask us to make
the flat compliant?

Slim to nil?

And if they did do that, would the indemnity
policy cover us?

I think that is what it is for, amongst other things/


Notwithstanding all of that, which probably does take care of the
bureaucracy, maybe it would be an idea to get it surveyed anyway from
the safety perspective. I'm not thinking so much of fire access
issues which I believe are relatively recent compared with 70s, but
whether it is safe from the perspective of having an adequate floor
support etc.

The OP could decide to add firedoors and escapes etc. and that would
probably not be that expensive. Ripping out an entire conversion, if
it was bodged, and re-doing it is another thing.



--

..andy

In message , DJC
writes
wrote:
Our survey states that the flat probably doesn't comply with current
building regulations and our solicitor has advised that we request
further information regarding the status of the original loft
conversion.
The conversion works took place sometime around 1971 and therefore
clearly fall outside of the 1985 limit for obtaining regularisation.

Building regulations are not retrospective, you don't have to update to
the latest standards unless you are doing new work. If the work dosn't
conform to what the regs would have been in 1971 it is too late for
anyone to pursue the matter.

Do you happen to know the time limit, and where it can be seen
documented officially?

So, I can't see what you are worrying about. A case of an stupid
jobsworth surveyor I suspect.


Agreed

--
Richard Faulkner

wrote:

I'm currently in the process of buying a two-bed maisonette in a 1900s
converted terrace house.

In short stop worrying, if you want it, then buy it.

We've also been provided with planning permission for the enlargement
of a dormer window at the front of the house (in the loft) and the
formation of a new one to the rear (where the ensuite is).

After all this time I susspect even lack of PP would have no teeth. Lack
of building regs certainly won't

Our survey states that the flat probably doesn't comply with current
building regulations and our solicitor has advised that we request

Most property in the country does not comply with *current* building
regs. There is no reason why it should or any need to change it either
(unless you are doing other notifiable work now).

The conversion works took place sometime around 1971 and therefore
clearly fall outside of the 1985 limit for obtaining regularisation.

And hence by implication have been there for 35 years without any major
structural issues....

In all likelihood, we're not going to see building regulation approval
for the conversion and we're clearly not going to be able to get the
works regularised - so what do we do?

nothing!

It seems to me that we only have 2 options:

1. to walk away; or

Why? no point.

2. obtain some form of indemnity insurance (at the seller's cost) re
the lack of building reg approval.

You could, but unless you have a laywer being a PITA you may as well
save the money and hassle.

I'm really not inclined to walk away if I can help it, which leaves me
with seeking indemnity insurance.

As the conversion was done at least 30 years ago, I would have thought
that if there were any real problems, they would have come to light by
now. Indeed, other than flagging that the property "probably doesn't
comply" with current building regs, the survey states that there are no
obvious structural problems.

I think you have answered your own question then ;-)

Therefore, the only risks seem to be (a) that the council come in and
tell us to make the property building reg compliant, and (b) we have

They have no power to do that.

difficulties selling on in the future.

Not much.... if a buyer got jittery you could always offer to purchase
the indemnity for them - in the total cost of moving it is a drop in hte
ocean.

What are the chances that the council will come in and ask us to make
the flat compliant?

Absolutely none.

And if they did do that, would the indemnity
policy cover us?

Not really relevant given the above.

Could we sell the property with the benefit of an indemnity policy in
the future?

Possibly...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

In message , Grunff
writes
wrote:

Could we sell the property with the benefit of an indemnity policy in
the future?

Some anally retentive solicitors may insist upon it (we've just had to
do this with our house), and in that case you'll just have to fork out
£150-£200.


Any tips on how to deal with this, and/or whether this is likely to
affect a future sale would be much appreciated.

Ignore the issue. If you want the house, buy it.


Yeah, the issue of BR and indemnities came up when selling our house.

The buyers solicitor queried the lack of BR approval for the 30 + yo car
port, and suggested we purchase an indemnity policy. We pointed out to
ours that 1. it was exempt from BR, 2 it was well past any date when
action could be taken.

but there seems to be no clue with them as to what the DR rules are re
enforcemnt - ours would have happily had us going along with them if we
hadn't pointed out the lack of need for it.
--
Chris French

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:41:44 +0000, Richard Faulkner wrote:

roval.


Or at your own cost? Assuming you can get it, I dont think it will cost
much, ( a few hundred pounds?). In fact, I probably wouldnt mention it
to the sellers, as they may get it and add value to the property in so
doing. ISTR a solicitor suggesting that building regs indemnity was
fairly easy to obtain, and ISTR she mentioned Norwich Union)

I'm not surprised the insurance is 'easy to obtain' the risk is very very
low for the insurer. Structural collapse even if remotely possible would
likely be instigated by an external (storm, fire, flood) which is already
covered by the buildings insurance.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

"chris French" wrote in message
...
In message , Grunff
writes
wrote:

Could we sell the property with the benefit of an indemnity policy in
the future?

Some anally retentive solicitors may insist upon it (we've just had to do
this with our house), and in that case you'll just have to fork out
£150-£200.


Any tips on how to deal with this, and/or whether this is likely to
affect a future sale would be much appreciated.

Ignore the issue. If you want the house, buy it.


Yeah, the issue of BR and indemnities came up when selling our house.

The buyers solicitor queried the lack of BR approval for the 30 + yo car
port, and suggested we purchase an indemnity policy. We pointed out to
ours that 1. it was exempt from BR, 2 it was well past any date when
action could be taken.

but there seems to be no clue with them as to what the DR rules are re
enforcemnt - ours would have happily had us going along with them if we
hadn't pointed out the lack of need for it.
--

You forget that solicitors and conveyancers get commission for these
policies.

In article , Richard Faulkner
wrote:

In message .com,
writes

2. obtain some form of indemnity insurance (at the seller's cost) re
the lack of building reg approval.


Or at your own cost? Assuming you can get it, I dont think it will cost
much, ( a few hundred pounds?).

We got 250,000 GBP building reg. consent indemnity cover for 79 quid
(from Liberty Legal Indemnities) about 2 years ago. As others have said
it probably wasn't needed but as a small fraction of the house purchase
cost it was probably worthwhile for peace of mind.

--
Mike Clarke

Mike Clarke wrote:

We got 250,000 GBP building reg. consent indemnity cover for 79 quid
(from Liberty Legal Indemnities) about 2 years ago. As others have said
it probably wasn't needed but as a small fraction of the house purchase
cost it was probably worthwhile for peace of mind.

I dont think you're actually purchasing anything, just a policy that
seems to have no way of ever paying out, presuming the unapproved work
isnt new.


NT

In message .com,
writes
Mike Clarke wrote:

We got 250,000 GBP building reg. consent indemnity cover for 79 quid
(from Liberty Legal Indemnities) about 2 years ago. As others have said
it probably wasn't needed but as a small fraction of the house purchase
cost it was probably worthwhile for peace of mind.

I dont think you're actually purchasing anything, just a policy that
seems to have no way of ever paying out, presuming the unapproved work
isnt new.

I would look at it like a damp proof course with 30 year guarantee -
fairly pointless in the first place, and no way of ever being repaired
under guarantee.

However, when you come to sell, the buyers surveyor should feel less
need to cover his/her arse. In fact, the building reg. indemnity is
probably better than the Damp proof guarantee in this respect.

--
Richard Faulkner