We are selling our house, we have a carport (built we assume at or
around the same time as the extension and the garage - late '60's - we
bought the house in 1997)

The buyers solicitor queried if we had any building regs approval for
the car port (we did have the plans etc. approved for PP as it happens
for the extensions). Of course we didn't.

So a letter arrives today saying he is saying that we take out an
indemnity policy because of this (to cover the buyers against whatever
potential liability they would be exposed to). Now in this instance he
seems to be talking out of his arse as AFAICS a carport of 30m^2 floor
area (which I'm sure ours is) is exempt, so will sort that out tomorrow.

But it got me wondering as to what liabilities - if any, someone would
have this sort of situation if BRA was required?. Is there some sort of
open ended liability for things built without BRA (like there is for
listed building consents say)?

--
Chris French, Leeds

"chris French" wrote in message
...
We are selling our house, we have a carport (built we assume at or
around the same time as the extension and the garage - late '60's - we
bought the house in 1997)

The buyers solicitor queried if we had any building regs approval for
the car port (we did have the plans etc. approved for PP as it happens
for the extensions). Of course we didn't.

So a letter arrives today saying he is saying that we take out an
indemnity policy because of this (to cover the buyers against whatever
potential liability they would be exposed to). Now in this instance he
seems to be talking out of his arse as AFAICS a carport of 30m^2 floor
area (which I'm sure ours is) is exempt, so will sort that out tomorrow.

But it got me wondering as to what liabilities - if any, someone would
have this sort of situation if BRA was required?. Is there some sort of
open ended liability for things built without BRA (like there is for
listed building consents say)?

Not normally. There is a four year legal limit I believe and in fact a much
shorter time in practice. Thus the policy usually only has to cover the
cost of a solicitor to sort out the legalities and if necessary a
regularisation fee with the local authority.

In article , newspost-c-002
@familyfrench.co.uk says...

So a letter arrives today saying he is saying that we take out an
indemnity policy because of this (to cover the buyers against whatever
potential liability they would be exposed to).

Sounds like they haven't thought through what the worst-case scenario is
i.e. the Council decide they're not at all happy with the car port and
ask them to remove it. That'll hardly break the bank, or cause the value
of the house to plummet. Why should they worry?

David

chris French wrote:

We are selling our house, we have a carport (built we assume at or
around the same time as the extension and the garage - late '60's - we
bought the house in 1997)

The buyers solicitor queried if we had any building regs approval for
the car port (we did have the plans etc. approved for PP as it happens
for the extensions). Of course we didn't.

So a letter arrives today saying he is saying that we take out an
indemnity policy because of this (to cover the buyers against whatever
potential liability they would be exposed to). Now in this instance he
seems to be talking out of his arse as AFAICS a carport of 30m^2 floor
area (which I'm sure ours is) is exempt, so will sort that out tomorrow.

But it got me wondering as to what liabilities - if any, someone would
have this sort of situation if BRA was required?. Is there some sort of
open ended liability for things built without BRA (like there is for
listed building consents say)?

Went throuigh similar shenanigans selling me mums house a couple of
minths ago.

Basically te purchasers solicitors may be linbale to be sued if they
fail to dot every I and cross every T - in our case it was rihht of
access via a private road which had been used uninterruptedly for 50 years.

The amount of delay that it cost me in refusing to pay the 300 or 400
quid indemity, was instrumental in losing about 1500 interest on the
money if the sale had completed earlier. Needless to say no one told me
it was just a one off payment of a few hundred quid.

In the end I just said '********, I haven't got all the guarantees on
the windows, me mum is dotty and doesn't know what its all about, the
road is there and everyone uses its and if you don't want the sodding
house stop pratting about and I'll sell it to someone else'

This relayed in a slightly more polite way via the estate agent, did the
trick.

From what I can establish it was just lawyers making work for
themselves. Its a lwayer scam and an insurance scam. Each gets profit
out of providing extra cover that is totally uncesesary. Bit like
extended warranty at dixons.

My experience in other case of this nature involoving lawyers is to make
a firm statement that wot you see is wot you get, the price is for the
property as seen and with such guarantes as I am able to provide, and if
you don't like it sod off and stop wasting my time.

I really get ****ed off with people who make an offer and then start
trying to screw the price down once they have eliminated the competition.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I really get ****ed off with people who make an offer and then start
trying to screw the price down once they have eliminated the competition.

Ohhhh I hate them sorts.
I had one, did a survey got mortgagre the whole works then farted about
for nearly 2 months because there was a crack in the detached garge.

I gave the estate agent the ultimatum of he either buys in the next 7
days or the house is off the market.

He didn't I did then sold it 2 months later for 10K more.

******* get what they deserve.

--
http://gymratz.co.uk - Best Gym Equipment & Bodybuilding Supplements UK.
http://trade-price-supplements.co.uk - TRADE PRICED SUPPLEMENTS for ALL!
http://fitness-equipment-uk.com - UK's No.1 Fitness Equipment Suppliers.
http://gymratz.co.uk/hot-seat.htm - Live web-cam! (sometimes)

He is trying to cover your backside and his. It is now standard practice
after a solicitor and his client lost an expensive court case when the
client did not disclose various things he should have done. Realistically
you have little choice but to take the advice because most if not all
solicitors follow the same procedure.

Peter Crosland

In message , Peter
Crosland writes
He is trying to cover your backside and his. It is now standard practice
after a solicitor and his client lost an expensive court case when the
client did not disclose various things he should have done. Realistically
you have little choice but to take the advice because most if not all
solicitors follow the same procedure.

I understand the principle of doing this - I've no issues with that
really, in fact we have already agreed to pay for an indemnity policy
regarding another matter, and the extra isn't that much really. It's
less than GBP200 and it really isn't worth potentially holding up our
sale (wife starts new job on May 2nd, we want moved ASAP.) And our
solicitor did say that it's something they have become more careful off
in the last few years.

And so far things have gone fine with the sale, got the asking price
quickly, I'm sure their survey would have given things to barter the
price down but they didn't try any of that, don't want to screw things
up over a small matter really.

It's just in this particular aspect AFAICS the carport doesn't have
building regs approval, because it is exempt from the requirements, so
there is no need for anything anyway.

This just led me on to wondering what liability if any people were open
to.
--
Chris French, Leeds

In message , David McNeish
writes
In article , newspost-c-002
says...

So a letter arrives today saying he is saying that we take out an
indemnity policy because of this (to cover the buyers against whatever
potential liability they would be exposed to).

Sounds like they haven't thought through what the worst-case scenario is
i.e. the Council decide they're not at all happy with the car port and
ask them to remove it. That'll hardly break the bank, or cause the value
of the house to plummet. Why should they worry?

The buyers have been on honeymoon for the last 2 weeks, they may know
nothing about this yet. I think it's just the solicitor I think.

--
Chris French, Leeds

In message , Mike
writes

"chris French" wrote in message
...

But it got me wondering as to what liabilities - if any, someone would
have this sort of situation if BRA was required?. Is there some sort of
open ended liability for things built without BRA (like there is for
listed building consents say)?

Not normally. There is a four year legal limit I believe and in fact a much
shorter time in practice. Thus the policy usually only has to cover the
cost of a solicitor to sort out the legalities and if necessary a
regularisation fee with the local authority.


Out of interest, how does regularisation work? Is it basically a case of
saying - ok it's been here all these, here we go. Or do they check if
something meets the regs first?
--
Chris French, Leeds

"chris French" wrote in message
...
Not normally. There is a four year legal limit I believe and in fact a
much
shorter time in practice. Thus the policy usually only has to cover the
cost of a solicitor to sort out the legalities and if necessary a
regularisation fee with the local authority.


Out of interest, how does regularisation work? Is it basically a case of
saying - ok it's been here all these, here we go. Or do they check if
something meets the regs first?


I believe you state what work has been done, when it was done (with some
sort of proof) and then they come and see it and may ask for some critical
bits (foundations, lintels) to be exposed to ensure they are there.

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
He is trying to cover your backside and his. It is now standard practice
after a solicitor and his client lost an expensive court case when the
client did not disclose various things he should have done. Realistically
you have little choice but to take the advice because most if not all
solicitors follow the same procedure.

Peter Crosland

Why is this protecting the seller - assuming the seller has been totally
honest in disclosing all facts to the best of his knowledge?

James

Peter Crosland wrote:

He is trying to cover your backside and his. It is now standard practice
after a solicitor and his client lost an expensive court case when the
client did not disclose various things he should have done. Realistically
you have little choice but to take the advice because most if not all
solicitors follow the same procedure.

Peter Crosland


I say not.

he solicitors arewell within their rights to pint these things out, but
once pointed out they ae legaly unassialble. Its between the two actual
parties to decide wheher to proceed on that basis or not.
You cannot sue someone who has said 'that may not be to building regs'
if it turns out it isn't.

Only someone who failed to exercise due diligence in etsblashing whether
it was or not.

It's just in this particular aspect AFAICS the carport doesn't have
building regs approval, because it is exempt from the requirements, so
there is no need for anything anyway.

This just led me on to wondering what liability if any people were open
to.


As I recall it the particular case involved a dishonest cleint and a less
that careful solicitor but someone will be along shortly to correct me! I
suspect he is just being ultra cautious! Nevertheless, people have become
increasingly litigious so it is probably best regarded as insurance.


Peter Crosland

Why is this protecting the seller - assuming the seller has been totally
honest in disclosing all facts to the best of his knowledge?


That is the problem because sellers are often "economical with the truth"
and the solicitor can be left being liable particularly if the client has no
surplus funds. In any case it is best regarded as insurance that you hope
you never have to claim against.

Peter Crosland

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
Why is this protecting the seller - assuming the seller has been totally
honest in disclosing all facts to the best of his knowledge?


That is the problem because sellers are often "economical with the truth"
and the solicitor can be left being liable particularly if the client has
no surplus funds. In any case it is best regarded as insurance that you
hope you never have to claim against.

Peter Crosland


But in this case it is the buyers solicitor who is demanding the insurance -
not the sellers solicitor.

James

In message , James
writes

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
Why is this protecting the seller - assuming the seller has been totally
honest in disclosing all facts to the best of his knowledge?


That is the problem because sellers are often "economical with the truth"
and the solicitor can be left being liable particularly if the client has
no surplus funds. In any case it is best regarded as insurance that you
hope you never have to claim against.

But in this case it is the buyers solicitor who is demanding the insurance -
not the sellers solicitor.

Yes, the indemnity policy is basically to provide cover for the buyers
in the event that someone was to sue them in the future (it's regarding
a breach of a restrictive covenant on the house - and if lack of BRegs
had been an issue against any possible action regarding that)

It doesn't provide us any cover, nor the solicitors against us having
told any porky pies.

--
Chris French, Leeds

But in this case it is the buyers solicitor who is demanding the
insurance - not the sellers solicitor.

Beause he wants his backside covered as well!

In message , Peter
Crosland writes
But in this case it is the buyers solicitor who is demanding the
insurance - not the sellers solicitor.

Beause he wants his backside covered as well!

Well yes, he would not be serving his clients interests if he did not
draw these things to their attention and suggest this course of action
to them. Of course he would leave himself open to action if he didn't.

But it doesn't offer them (solicitors or buyers) any general protection
against us being 'economical with the truth'. As I understand it the
indemnity policy is limited to covering the specific risks outlined
--
Chris French, Leeds

chris French wrote:

In message , Peter
Crosland writes

But in this case it is the buyers solicitor who is demanding the
insurance - not the sellers solicitor.


Beause he wants his backside covered as well!

Well yes, he would not be serving his clients interests if he did not
draw these things to their attention and suggest this course of action
to them. Of course he would leave himself open to action if he didn't.

But it doesn't offer them (solicitors or buyers) any general protection
against us being 'economical with the truth'. As I understand it the
indemnity policy is limited to covering the specific risks outlined

Yes. Typically you might have a specific situation that is an unknown.
And can't be predicted. And isn't covered by normal insurance.

Your solicitor as a butyer has a duty to poi8nt out to you where all teh
possible pigs in the particlar poke you are buying are, and make you
aware of teh fact that by payimng twicve what the house costs in
contingency insurance, you can stop worrying about them. Thats his job,.

You are not obliged to take his advice. Merely refrain from suing him
for not giving it in the first place.

In this case it seems utterly specious, because any modifications and
structures that are more than 12 years old are I think de-facto outside
buliding control's remit.

You can buy a house with tiny winodws, no insulation and a step ladder
to the upstairs. No opne can prevent you. What BC does it to prevent you
frnm builkding one like that today.

Onlky health and safety can actually order you out of a property that is
deemd unfit for habitation. Cf teh bloke that lived in a house with a
stream feeding water to him, and then something happened and H & S said
it wasnt fit to drink and condemned teh house.

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes

In this case it seems utterly specious, because any modifications and
structures that are more than 12 years old are I think de-facto outside
buliding control's remit.


It's be handy if someone could point to some documentation on this
aspect. I've heard various figures on this point, but I've not been
successfully been able to search out anything on the web on it.

Anyway, in this case it's meaningless as the car port is exempt from
building regs anyway. (well current ones, god knows what those in 1968
said)
--
Chris French, Leeds

"chris French" wrote in message
...
the car port is exempt from
building regs anyway.

well current ones, god knows what those in 1968 said

Probably "what's a car port" :-)

chris French wrote:

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes


In this case it seems utterly specious, because any modifications and
structures that are more than 12 years old are I think de-facto
outside buliding control's remit.


It's be handy if someone could point to some documentation on this
aspect. I've heard various figures on this point, but I've not been
successfully been able to search out anything on the web on it.


Well heres a few things of note from 2000 building regs

- a structure that is not to regulations can be ordered to be pulled
down provided that a notices is issued withn twelve months of te
completein of that work.

Interesting Because completion is defined by the issueance of a building
control certificate.....

- Bulding regulations do NOT apply to existing structures. They apply to
BUILDING WORK which is defined as

Erection or extension of a building

Material alteration of a bulding, controlled service, or fitting (e.g..
fitting a new boiler, new windows etc.)

The provision of such as above (e.g. installation of a CH system)

Work when a material change of use is to take place. I take this to mean
that e.g. converting a farmhouse to holiday flats, any or all of the
work is covered.

Insertion of insulating material into cavity walls, Odd that they had to
make a special case of that one.

Underpinning of a building. That's odd too.

Anwyay, in addition to that things like car ports are normally exempt
from control.

Planning is anoher mater. Unplanned erections (sic!) may be required to
be removed by the council. However I am fairly sure there is a statute
of limitations on these: After 12 years its assumed no one really
mnonded after all.







Anyway, in this case it's meaningless as the car port is exempt from
building regs anyway. (well current ones, god knows what those in 1968
said)

Planning is anoher mater. Unplanned erections (sic!) may be required to
be removed by the council. However I am fairly sure there is a statute
of limitations on these: After 12 years its assumed no one really
mnonded after all.

A collegue had an issue with a window which had been fitted into a gable
end without planning permission by previous occupiers more than 12 years
before. Planning people said they could not insist on anything being done
to it at this late stage, but for planning purposes it was effectively not
there so it could not be used as a reason to prevent the neighbour building
an extension which had a solid brick wall 2 inches from it. However, the
colleague could try applying for retrospective planning permission which
if granted would then give it the requesit status to prevent any such
extension, and if refused, the situation simply remained unchanged.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:06:32 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named
chris French randomly hit the
keyboard and produced:

We are selling our house, ...

So a letter arrives today saying he is saying that we take out an
indemnity policy because of this (to cover the buyers against whatever
potential liability they would be exposed to).

But it got me wondering as to what liabilities - if any, someone would
have this sort of situation if BRA was required?. Is there some sort of
open ended liability for things built without BRA (like there is for
listed building consents say)?

IANAL, but IMHO these indemnity policies seem to be a rip-off. They
only seem to cover a risk that doesn't exist.

The only 'risk' is if the work is so dangerous that the Council take
out an injunction to pull down or otherwise alter the work. However,
this is so rare, I've not even heard of this being done, much less
taken one out.

There are other provisions of the Building Act relating to dangerous
buildings, but these apply to any building whether or not any work was
carried out.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:56:32 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named
chris French randomly hit the
keyboard and produced:

Out of interest, how does regularisation work? Is it basically a case of
saying - ok it's been here all these, here we go. Or do they check if
something meets the regs first?

The work is inspected to check whether it complies with the
requirements that were in force at the time the work was carried out.
This may include getting the applicant to expose whatever bits of the
work is necessary to verify this. Only if it does comply will a
certificate be issued.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Well heres a few things of note from 2000 building regs


Insertion of insulating material into cavity walls, Odd that they had to
make a special case of that one.

This was to control the cowboys who were injecting totally unsuitable
buildings.


Planning is anoher mater. Unplanned erections (sic!) may be required to
be removed by the council. However I am fairly sure there is a statute
of limitations on these: After 12 years its assumed no one really
mnonded after all.

4 years. Then it's legit. Just pay the fee.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:18:17 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named
chris French randomly hit the
keyboard and produced:

It's be handy if someone could point to some documentation on this
aspect. I've heard various figures on this point, but I've not been
successfully been able to search out anything on the web on it.

Under the Magistrate's Act (IIRC), an action for a breach of the
Building Act or the Building Regulations can only be taken within 6
months of the alleged offence being committed.

Under S36 of the Building Act 1984, a notice to remove or alter the
work can only be served within 12 months of the contravention.

Under the Building Regulations, a regularisation certificate can only
be applied for any work that commenced after Nov 1985.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

In message , Hugo Nebula
writes
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:18:17 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named
chris French randomly hit the
keyboard and produced:

It's be handy if someone could point to some documentation on this
aspect. I've heard various figures on this point, but I've not been
successfully been able to search out anything on the web on it.

Under the Magistrate's Act (IIRC), an action for a breach of the
Building Act or the Building Regulations can only be taken within 6
months of the alleged offence being committed.

Under S36 of the Building Act 1984, a notice to remove or alter the
work can only be served within 12 months of the contravention.


So basically, the local authority can do nothing after 12 months anyway?

That's useful, as I'm still waiting to hear back from our solicitor
regarding the status of works that was done at the property we are
buying.

In itself I'm not greatly concerned about this, our only real concern
was being left open to any potential action in the future (it's a G11
listed building as well, so there is the issue of listed building
consent of course, but AFAIK, the work predates that anyway, so should
isn't an issue)
--
Chris French, Leeds

"chris French" wrote in message
...
In itself I'm not greatly concerned about this, our only real concern
was being left open to any potential action in the future (it's a G11
listed building as well, so there is the issue of listed building
consent of course, but AFAIK, the work predates that anyway, so should
isn't an issue)

I would get that proven though (should be details in the listing document)
as there is no time limit on prosecuting illegal changes to listed
buildings.

In message , Mike
writes

"chris French" wrote in message
...
In itself I'm not greatly concerned about this, our only real concern
was being left open to any potential action in the future (it's a G11
listed building as well, so there is the issue of listed building
consent of course, but AFAIK, the work predates that anyway, so should
isn't an issue)

I would get that proven though (should be details in the listing document)
as there is no time limit on prosecuting illegal changes to listed
buildings.


Yes, I realised that. One of the reasons we raised the issue.

The local conservation officer (or whatever they are called) has visited
the property before, it's unlikely the works would have passed unnoticed
by him I should think.
--
Chris French, Leeds

Sounds like an urban myth to me.

In itself I'm not greatly concerned about this, our only real concern was
being left open to any potential action in the future (it's a G11 listed
building as well, so there is the issue of listed building consent of
course, but AFAIK, the work predates that anyway, so should isn't an
issue)


If the building is listed then there is no time limit as far as enforcement
is concerned. Even if unauthorised work was done by a previous owner the
current owner can be forced to undo it at his cost. Also remember doing any
unauthrised work to a listed building is a criminal offence as well.

Peter Crosland

"chris French" wrote in message
...
In message , Mike
In itself I'm not greatly concerned about this, our only real concern
was being left open to any potential action in the future (it's a G11
listed building as well, so there is the issue of listed building
consent of course, but AFAIK, the work predates that anyway, so should
isn't an issue)

I would get that proven though (should be details in the listing
document)
as there is no time limit on prosecuting illegal changes to listed
buildings.


Yes, I realised that. One of the reasons we raised the issue.

The local conservation officer (or whatever they are called) has visited
the property before, it's unlikely the works would have passed unnoticed
by him I should think.


Give him a phone or visit before you buy just to check he is happy.
Unfortunately getting them to put this in writing can be like the proverbial
blood out of a stone so use one of those voice recorders hidden in your
pocket.

"Mike" wrote in message ...
"chris French" wrote in message
...
In message , Mike
In itself I'm not greatly concerned about this, our only real concern
was being left open to any potential action in the future (it's a G11
listed building as well, so there is the issue of listed building
consent of course, but AFAIK, the work predates that anyway, so should
isn't an issue)

I would get that proven though (should be details in the listing
document)
as there is no time limit on prosecuting illegal changes to listed
buildings.


Yes, I realised that. One of the reasons we raised the issue.

The local conservation officer (or whatever they are called) has visited
the property before, it's unlikely the works would have passed unnoticed
by him I should think.


Give him a phone or visit before you buy just to check he is happy.
Unfortunately getting them to put this in writing can be like the proverbial
blood out of a stone so use one of those voice recorders hidden in your
pocket.

That won't help you when it ends up in court - a covert tape recording
not made within the bounds of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Act isn't admissible and would probably land you in trouble.

"gareth" wrote in message
om...
Give him a phone or visit before you buy just to check he is happy.
Unfortunately getting them to put this in writing can be like the
proverbial
blood out of a stone so use one of those voice recorders hidden in your
pocket.

That won't help you when it ends up in court - a covert tape recording
not made within the bounds of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Act isn't admissible and would probably land you in trouble.

It's fine when made on your own property - as this would be. Comes under
the survellance act that makes CCTV recordings from your house legal.