Alterations to existing loft conversion

[RJ95]

Hi,

We're purchasing a mid-terrace property that had an existing loft conversion upgraded in 2019. We see from the Party Wall Notice the intention was to bring it up to Building Regs to use as a bedroom and ensuite. Once the work was completed it was sold as a 3 bed house (previously 2 bed).

 

There is a building control final certificate from 2019 that signs off on "alterations to existing loft conversion". However, our surveyor informed us that a three storey house would require a protected means of escape from the third storey. There are mains powered smoke alarms on each floor but no fire doors - nothing at the stairwell to the loft, and no fire doors in the open plan areas on the second floor or ground floor. We are concerned that without this it is not compliant to be used a a habitable room (presumably in 2019 the fire regs were the same or at least similar to today).

 

We raised with solicitor but it's clear she has nothing to say on the matter. We asked the seller to request the full inspection report from building control to understand what work was done and what they understood the intended use to be when signing it off. They will not provide this due to GDPR as it was the previous owners who did the work.

 

We're really confused. We've been offered an indemnity but our main concern is 1. Safety and potential insurance issues, and 2. Whether it is legitimately a 3 bedroom house.

 

We're now being pressured to complete and everyone seems to be brushing over it.

 

If anyone can provide us with some guidance I'd appreciate it - we don't know if we're worrying for no reason but nobody can tell us either way.

[Big Jimbo]

I would imagine that you would need fire doors, and a protected stairwell, so I doubt it would comply as a bedroom. Have they described it as such, or called it a storage area ?

Edited February 14 by Big Jimbo

[torre]

Surprising if post Grenfell any building inspector would sign off a loft without protected means of escape. Sounds pretty clear it doesn't meet current building regulations and (on a human level) would you put your children in a loft room knowing there's no safe means of escape?

 

You could ask the seller to apply for a certificate of regularisation and tell them otherwise you'll need to revise your offer to reflect that the property only has two bedrooms.

[marshian]

2 hours ago, torre said:

Surprising if post Grenfell any building inspector would sign off a loft without protected means of escape. Sounds pretty clear it doesn't meet current building regulations and (on a human level) would you put your children in a loft room knowing there's no safe means of escape?

 

Absolutely

 

2 hours ago, torre said:

otherwise you'll need to revise your offer to reflect that the property only has two bedrooms.

 

Because then it's OK to put your children in there

 

I'd walk away - you'll have the same issue if you leave it as it is when you come to sell it

[kandgmitchell]

It is interesting that the means of escape requirements in the Building Regulations mention "habitable rooms" needing access to a suitable escape route when on the ground floor or a floor no more than 4.5m above ground level. For floors above 4.5m above ground level the reference changes to "dwelling houses" shall have etc..... the implication being that whatever the use of the rooms on that floor above 4.5m, the correct means of escape should be provided.

 

As to why no protected route was provided in this case is odd. My guess is there was an existing non-compliant loft conversion probably done without approval but some time ago. That put it outside the enforcement provisions of the Building Control system. Then some minor alteration to the loft room was proposed that did not make the existing fire escape situation worse than it already was and the applicant claimed the protection of Paragraph 3 of Regulation 4 (of the 2010 regs as they were) and the LA couldn't really not have approved it. 

 

The refusal of the LA to allow the current owner of the property a view of the application seems bizzare, I bought and completed a project that had been abandoned by the previous owners and the LA were quite happy for me to see their file as I needed to know what they had approved and what they had or hadn't inspected.

 

The OP is the only one that can make this call but on a personal basis I'd walk away. Two reasons, 1) the real risk to users of the 2nd floor, and 2) the pain of trying to sell it again at a later stage. Not easy if in all other ways the house suits their needs. Of course, if the alterations can be done to make it compliant then a hefty discount might make up for it.....