regularisation Retrospective regularisation

[pseek]

Hi, we are in the process of purchasing a Victorian terraced house. We did a private survey on the property and it is mentioned that there are works done to the main wall and internal wall removed need to have planning permission for that. But the current owners do not have documents and they say it was done even before they bought which was 20 years ago in 2003. In that case my surveyer suggests to get regularisation for that. Which sellers not ready to do saying since they didn’t do any work for last 20 years from the time they bought. My solicitor also says sellers don’t need to legally provide that if the works done 10 years ago. But in council it lets us to apply for regularisation if the work was done after 11 nov 1985. But we have no proof when the work was done. We checked with the neighbour who has been living from 1994. He also says the property remained the same from his time and he do not have any document for his property too just has hm land registry document. Probably the property is strong enough since the work was done may be even 30 years ago. Can we take my solicitors word and proceed buying or insist on going for regularisation? If regularisation is applied will they grant the certificate for the works done more than 30 years ago? If we buy, is this going trouble us when we want to sell or reduce the value of the property? We like the property but don’t want to get into a situation where we can not sell in future. Kindly someone suggest please.

Edited December 31, 2023 by pseek

[DevilDamo]

Planning and Building Regulations are different things.

 

The alterations should not have required any form of Planning approval (unless it’s a Listed Building). The alterations may well have required Building Regulations.

 

It would be down to the current owner/seller of the property to prove any works that did or did not require approval. It would therefore be them who would consider a Regularisation application. However, as the works appear to have been carried out so long ago, their best bet would be to take out Indemnity Insurance. They hold little to no weight should anything be wrong with the property, but it’s accepted as a legal document for the sale to proceed.

[billt]

There are 2 issues here. Does the work affect the safety of the building? Your survey should answer that question.

 

The other issue is can a statutory body take action to enforce non compliance with building regulations? The practical answer to that question is no. LAs will only take enforcement action if they become aware of the non compliance and they are extremely unlikely to take action unless there is a serious issue affecting safety. They have more calls on their resources than chasing trivial compliance issues. If the LA wish to take action they should issue an enforcement notice within 12 months of the work having been carried out. They can pursue non compliance after that but they need to apply to a court for an injunction to stop the use of the property. If the work was done more than 20 years ago the chance of enforcement action being taken is as close to zero as makes no difference.

 

There are also time limits on enforcement of planning law which are long expired.

 

[pseek]

22 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

Planning and Building Regulations are different things.

 

The alterations should not have required any form of Planning approval (unless it’s a Listed Building). The alterations may well have required Building Regulations.

 

It would be down to the current owner/seller of the property to prove any works that did or did not require approval. It would therefore be them who would consider a Regularisation application. However, as the works appear to have been carried out so long ago, their best bet would be to take out Indemnity Insurance. They hold little to no weight should anything be wrong with the property, but it’s accepted as a legal document for the sale to proceed.

Thanks for the reply. Actually the seller is not even ready to give indemnity insurance also don’t show any interest in applying regularisation quoting the property remains same from the time they bought which is 20 years ago. But surveyor suggests to request for regularisation certificate before proceeding to be safe for future sale. But my solicitor don’t suggest this. He just says property is clear without indemnity insurance or regularisation certificate. Our main worry is we will most likely sell the property in 5 to 8 years down the line and do not want to have issues in selling due to this or property value also down due to this reason. Kindly advice if we can apply for regularisation after we purchase or its risky 

[pseek]

18 hours ago, billt said:

There are 2 issues here. Does the work affect the safety of the building? Your survey should answer that question.

 

The other issue is can a statutory body take action to enforce non compliance with building regulations? The practical answer to that question is no. LAs will only take enforcement action if they become aware of the non compliance and they are extremely unlikely to take action unless there is a serious issue affecting safety. They have more calls on their resources than chasing trivial compliance issues. If the LA wish to take action they should issue an enforcement notice within 12 months of the work having been carried out. They can pursue non compliance after that but they need to apply to a court for an injunction to stop the use of the property. If the work was done more than 20 years ago the chance of enforcement action being taken is as close to zero as makes no difference.

 

There are also time limits on enforcement of planning law which are long expired.

 

Thank you for the reply. So if we understand correct, LA enforcement is unlikely. But our main concern in this is the possibility of resale of this property in future if future buyers does this kind of survey like us and pulls out due to this. Is it possible and if there is a way if we can avoid this it would be very helpful please

[Ferdinand]

One middle way is to ask the seller to provide a statement via their solicitor that the work referred to was in place when they arrived. It would be strongest as a notarised Statement of Truth, but even a query from your solicitor to their solicitor, with a written answer, should have weight.

 

If their solicitor has already said that, there is no reason it cannot be via an email or letter exchange.

 

That avoids pfaff with indemnity policies, and may feel less confrontational to the seller.

 

But TBF it is currently a sellers market, so there may be opportunity for you to insist on an Indemnity Policy. If you insist that will put it up their agenda if they want you as a buyer.

 

An indemnity policy is usually inexpensive, so even if you chose to buy one it would be a tiny fraction of the cost of the house.

 

It is your call.

[pseek]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand said:

One middle way is to ask the seller to provide a statement via their solicitor that the work referred to was in place when they arrived. It would be strongest as a notarised Statement of Truth, but even a query from your solicitor to their solicitor, with a written answer, should have weight.

 

If their solicitor has already said that, there is no reason it cannot be via an email or letter exchange.

 

That avoids pfaff with indemnity policies, and may feel less confrontational to the seller.

 

But TBF it is currently a sellers market, so there may be opportunity for you to insist on an Indemnity Policy. If you insist that will put it up their agenda if they want you as a buyer.

 

An indemnity policy is usually inexpensive, so even if you chose to buy one it would be a tiny fraction of the cost of the house.

 

It is your call.

Thank you for your answer. They have already provided email statement on works already done when they arrived. 
We do not mind spending for indemnity policy ourselves. If I understand right this indemnity policy is only for this sale and I need to get one more when I want to sell next time. Is it so?

I read in web that usually indemnity policy is not going to protect if some future buyer directly reach to council, sorry I don’t know the process as first time buyer hence asking may be basic doubts.
Also my another doubt is since council is willing to regularise anything done after Nov 1985(as per their date in council website) should we still legally go for this? Even if we go for it,

1) will council straightaway provide the regularisation certificate since this is so long ago 

2) council inspect and may request any changes to the property

3) they won’t encourage retrospective regularisation itself and straightaway say they can not do it

 

overall question behind all this is, will we risk our resale value because of this? Or will future buyers be hesitant to buy due to this reason?

[Alan Ambrose]

It’s your surveyor’s and solicitor’s job to point out potential problems to you, however minor. With their advice, you then make the decision how important those outstanding issues are.

 

By all means get a formal statement from the sellers that the modifications were in the long distant past. Produce that, if needed, in 8 years time when you sell.

 

Otherwise, I would suggest that all house purchase involves some risk (e.g. dodgy neighbours) which you can do little about. *Life* is risky and you can’t remove all risk from your life - even with the best solicitors and insurance. For new houses, NHBC certificates generally only last 10 years (because you can’t guarantee a house for ever, and at some point you have to say ‘this house doesn’t have any major structural problems’). Expecting to cover structural problems after more than 10 years with any house purchase is a little fanciful.

 

Take a view, get the letter from their solicitors, and move on.

[DevilDamo]

2 hours ago, pseek said:

Our main worry is we will most likely sell the property in 5 to 8 years down the line

Proceed with the purchase without any documentation from the current owner. If it’s picked up at a time when you come to sell, do what this current owner is doing or take out Indemnity Insurance. As the works carried out appear to be minor, I personally wouldn’t worry about it. It it was an unauthorised loft conversion, then that would be a different conversation. 

[pseek]

Thanks everyone. I tried to speak with council for understanding if this need’s regularisation. They said they can’t find anything in their system which has data from 2001 and suggested to submit regularisation application through the current owner which will go to building control admin and they would do file search. Did anyone go through this to regularise the works done before 2001. Will it be available with the council? If it doesn’t what will be the response to do the regularisation?

[DevilDamo]

Did they also tell you the application will require parts of those previous works needing to be exposed, inspected and calculated? I wouldn’t agree to this if I was the current owner.

[pseek]

48 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

Did they also tell you the application will require parts of those previous works needing to be exposed, inspected and calculated? I wouldn’t agree to this if I was the current owner.

Thanks for the reply. Yes they mentioned it.

“c.    It’s not a paper exercise, sufficient of the work carried out will need to be exposed to check and confirm compliance”

I am also doubtful if sellers will agree and but this might come to bite us too later

I am curious to understand how much will it cost to expose a three bed terraced building for internal wall removal and main front wall redone woks inspection and fixing back the exposed. Sorry all these are new to us since we are new to the country and also first time buyers

 

[kandgmitchell]

Really? The works were done over 20 years ago. If nothing has happened to the structure over that period is it likely to happen now? When you sell your buyer will be looking back over nearly 30 years and will have the same decision to make i.e there is no piece of paper relating to works done which have had no physical impact on the property.

 

Like others above I'd not worry about getting this regularised. If you like the house and it's in a good location then it'll sell again.

[pseek]

Thank you I totally agree. This purchase is probably we are putting myself and partners good 8 year savings with 25% deposit. Also do not expect to stay more than 5 to 8 years in the country. With dependent children and if it’s a buyers market when we sell just these negative scenarios scares us. That’s why we were thinking to get the risk out of way since there is a possibility to do so

[kandgmitchell]

I don't think this sort of thing really worries buyers that much. Lots of houses have unauthorised things done to them over the years and they still sell. As the years pass, a buyers view of the situation will change. There is zero chance of the authority taking action (see above), the building hasn't suffered damage and so a buyer will be quite relaxed about the situation and will take a view. There'll be other matters they will be more interested in - location, size, appearance, schools etc etc. I really can't see this being an issue after so many years. Don't let it put you off if you like the house, and avoid regularisation; it'll be a pain for no real gain.

[Roger440]

5 hours ago, pseek said:

Thank you I totally agree. This purchase is probably we are putting myself and partners good 8 year savings with 25% deposit. Also do not expect to stay more than 5 to 8 years in the country. With dependent children and if it’s a buyers market when we sell just these negative scenarios scares us. That’s why we were thinking to get the risk out of way since there is a possibility to do so

 

I think you are completely over thinking this.

 

Its a house. Unless the surveyor believes theres a structural defect, what you are proposing is just a paperwork excercise, with some exposing of work thrown in.

 

All completely pointless. The house will remain the same regardless of the outcome. Nor is any buyer likely to agree. I certainly wouldnt.

 

Normally, id suggest an indemnity policy. Buy it yourself if need be. Likely to be £2-300. Sadly, by contacting the coubcil about it, so you have now voided that option as the policy will specifically exclude you doing that.

 

Sadly, you have also now removed the option to offer a future buyer said indemnity policy.

 

As i said, if the survey says its OK, frankly, everything else is just noise.

 

I doubt there are many houses around that have the ful suite of paperwork in place. Unless you acceot that, ill doubt you will ever buy a house. Sadly, solicitors have a job to do, but as Alan said, what it should be, is to advise you of the things you should ask for, but it is YOU that should decide. Sadly, they usually just frighten everyone with nonsensical requests. It was more than 20 years ago. Who cares!

[pseek]

We are pressing ahead with all your suggestions without regularisation. With gods grace hope we don’t struggle to sell it in the future.

[mr rusty]

Quote

It was more than 20 years ago. Who cares!

 

This. And if you're survey doesn't highlight any structural issues, then it's nothing to worry about at all. 

[pseek]

1 hour ago, pseek said:

We are pressing ahead with all your suggestions without regularisation. With gods grace hope we don’t struggle to sell it in the future.

Thanks to everyone!