Non-Compliant Upper Floor Windows (Low Sill Height)

[tg77]

We’re in the process of purchasing a 5-year-old property, and our building survey has flagged an issue: two upper-floor sash windows do not meet current building regulations due to low sill heights. The sills measure 710mm and 740mm and are currently without additional guarding.

 

The sellers have explained that the windows originally had guard rails installed, which they removed shortly after moving in. This likely explains why the property received a building completion certificate at the time, yet now appears non-compliant in the recent survey. While I understand their reasoning (I might have done the same), I do wish they had reinstated the guards before our surveyor’s visit!

 

My current view is that the sellers, as current owners, are responsible for ensuring the windows comply with regulations before exchange of contracts. This includes both the guarding requirement and fire escape compliance.

Ideally, I’d like to avoid reintroducing bulky guard rails. I’ve been looking into less intrusive options like sash window restrictors (e.g., Angel Ventlock), which I understand can satisfy both the guarding requirement (by limiting how far the window opens) and the fire escape requirement (as they can be opened without a key and in a single operation) 

 

There’s also the question of safety glazing which I understand is also be required for sill heights below 800mm. The sash windows are however made up of multiple small panes, and I understand there’s an exemption if:

• The smallest pane dimension is under 250mm,
• The area is less than 0.5m²,
• The glass is at least 6mm thick, and
• The glass is protected by a suitable barrier 

 

The sellers haven’t been able to confirm whether the glass is safety-rated. If it isn’t, then I conclude that a guard rail (i.e. 'suitable barrier') is our only option to meet the safety glass requirements, and only then if we can confirm that the dimensions of the panes satisfy the above exemption requirements.

 

Lastly, we’re planning to install plantation shutters to all windows after moving in. Does anyone know if these could satisfy the guarding requirement on their own? I’m guessing not - unless they have some kind of auto-close mechanism.

 

I’d really appreciate any advice or insights - especially if I’ve misunderstood anything or missed a key point.

 

Thanks in advance!

[Temp]

We accidentally built our house with two windows with low sills. The BCO picked it up but said he would pass it if we fitted window restrictors. The Approved Documents are only "one way" to comply with the Act which gives BCO some discretion. 

 

The seller doesn't have to do anything. You buy houses "as is" or at best "as represented". However you are free to use this to try to negotiate a better price. Just as they are free to say they already factored this into their asking price. 

[nod]

The easy option would be to replace the glass with laminated glass 

Most of our upstairs have cills at 250 from the floor 

[tg77]

27 minutes ago, Temp said:

We accidentally built our house with two windows with low sills. The BCO picked it up but said he would pass it if we fitted window restrictors. The Approved Documents are only "one way" to comply with the Act which gives BCO some discretion. 

 

The seller doesn't have to do anything. You buy houses "as is" or at best "as represented". However you are free to use this to try to negotiate a better price. Just as they are free to say they already factored this into their asking price. 

Thanks for the reply.

 

I completely understand that the sellers aren’t obligated to take any action. However, our solicitor has advised that this may need to be reported to our lender, as our recent survey indicates the property doesn’t comply with the building regulations certificate we’ve received.

 

It’s unclear at this stage whether this will pose an issue for our lender, but I’m hopeful the seller will address the matter. That way, we can have the surveyor revisit the property and, if all is in order, reissue the report confirming that the necessary regulations have been met—hopefully avoiding any complications on our side..

[tg77]

12 minutes ago, nod said:

The easy option would be to replace the glass with laminated glass 

Most of our upstairs have cills at 250 from the floor 

Are they openable windows? 

 

I had understood that low sill windows which open represent a fall risk and the therefore both safety glass AND guarding are required to meet regulations.

Edited July 22 by tg77

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, tg77 said:

We’re in the process of purchasing a 5-year-old property, and our building survey has flagged an issue: two upper-floor sash windows do not meet current building regulations due to low sill heights. The sills measure 710mm and 740mm and are currently without additional guarding.

 

The sellers have explained that the windows originally had guard rails installed, which they removed shortly after moving in. This likely explains why the property received a building completion certificate at the time, yet now appears non-compliant in the recent survey. While I understand their reasoning (I might have done the same), I do wish they had reinstated the guards before our surveyor’s visit!

 

My current view is that the sellers, as current owners, are responsible for ensuring the windows comply with regulations before exchange of contracts. This includes both the guarding requirement and fire escape compliance.

Ideally, I’d like to avoid reintroducing bulky guard rails. I’ve been looking into less intrusive options like sash window restrictors (e.g., Angel Ventlock), which I understand can satisfy both the guarding requirement (by limiting how far the window opens) and the fire escape requirement (as they can be opened without a key and in a single operation) 

 

There’s also the question of safety glazing which I understand is also be required for sill heights below 800mm. The sash windows are however made up of multiple small panes, and I understand there’s an exemption if:

• The smallest pane dimension is under 250mm,
• The area is less than 0.5m²,
• The glass is at least 6mm thick, and
• The glass is protected by a suitable barrier 

 

The sellers haven’t been able to confirm whether the glass is safety-rated. If it isn’t, then I conclude that a guard rail (i.e. 'suitable barrier') is our only option to meet the safety glass requirements, and only then if we can confirm that the dimensions of the panes satisfy the above exemption requirements.

 

Lastly, we’re planning to install plantation shutters to all windows after moving in. Does anyone know if these could satisfy the guarding requirement on their own? I’m guessing not - unless they have some kind of auto-close mechanism.

 

I’d really appreciate any advice or insights - especially if I’ve misunderstood anything or missed a key point.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

I think you have lost sight and perspective of whats important here. Do you want the house? If yes, just get on and buy it.

 

There are, literally, millions of homes that have things that dont comply with building regs. if people didnt buy houses, and lenders didnt lend, because stuff doesnt comply, no one would ever buy a house, and banks could shut up shop.

 

Buy it, and if it bothers you, rectify later. This is a trifiling issue, and, personally, id not even raise it with the vendors. Reserve damaging the relationship for stuff thats actually serious or important. (hopefull there wont be any of those)

 

This is how house sales fall through.

 

[Kelvin]

The challenge is that lenders are becoming increasingly pedantic about these kinds of details. We had a really frustrating experience selling our last house. The lender (Santander) questioned every tiny detail slowing the whole process up for weeks including a minor building regs non-compliance that the buyer didn’t care about. Ultimately that required taking out an indemnity to get past it. 

[Temp]

If you really must tell your lender I would tell them that... Your survey showed Guard Rails on windows have been removed since it was originally certified by Building Control but you intend to replace them. 

[Kelvin]

Just to add how petty our situation was. The building regs issue was there were three minor conditions that hadn’t been discharged. Two of them related to the build process (noise and mess) and the third I could demonstrate had been done even if it hadn’t been discharged (surrounding land had to be returned back to pasture land). The bank was insisting these were discharged by the council a few years after the barns had been converted. I phoned the council (not disclosing who I was or any details about the house in case I needed to indemnify against it) They said it would be unlikely they’d discharge them now and if so it could take months as not a priority and they were still all working from home as most of the paperwork wasn’t on the planning portal. I couldn’t quite believe the bank was insisting on getting a noise condition discharged years after the builders had left site. It really was just a computer says no situation. 

[JohnMo]

Easy, you make it a condition of sale that suitable measures are put in place by seller. Seller does what ever to make compliant. Gets note removed from survey at their cost. Or you remove several thousand from offer price, to take risk of lender not playing ball.

 

Lender needs to know nothing then. You change as you see fit, once in house.

 

Or leave as is, you maybe compelled to be fixed by the lender, and they may make it mandatory, for you to fix prior to getting any money anyway.

[tg77]

Just to clarify, the decision to inform our lender is not mine to make.

 

Our solicitor - who also represents our lender - is in possession of a RICS Level 2 survey which states that the property does not meet building regulations for the reasons mentioned earlier. As a result, the solicitor has advised that they are currently inclined to report this to the lender, as it could affect them.

 

That said, it seems we’re being given a window of time to try and resolve the issue ourselves (e.g. reinstating guards/restrictors, having the property reinspected, and getting the report updated and reissued). This would need to happen before exchange of contracts to avoid the lender being notified.

 

There’s always a chance the lender may not be concerned about this - but I’d rather not take that risk if we can avoid it.

 

I’d also prefer not to involve the seller at this stage, as from what I understand, the issue should be relatively straightforward for us to resolve and we do want the house. The challenge is simply that we don't apear to have an option to defer the work until after completion without the lender getting involved.

 

 

Edited July 22 by tg77

[nod]

3 hours ago, tg77 said:

Are they openable windows? 

 

I had understood that low sill windows which open represent a fall risk and the therefore both safety glass AND guarding are required to meet regulations.

Yes they all open 

[ProDave]

1 hour ago, tg77 said:

I’d also prefer not to involve the seller at this stage, as from what I understand, the issue should be relatively straightforward for us to resolve and we do want the house. The challenge is simply that we don't apear to have an option to defer the work until after completion without the lender getting involved.

If the previous owners removed the guards, then if they had half an ounce of sense they would have kept them, ready to be put back in the event of them being needed upon sale.  Have you even asked them if they still exist somewhere?

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, tg77 said:

I’d also prefer not to involve the seller at this stage

Why - your solicitor should be insisting you do! Or at least he should be.

 

Another issue is he representing two parties, is that even allowed, as it a conflict of interest?

[tg77]

11 minutes ago, nod said:

Yes they all open 

Interesting!.... are they also fire escape windows and if so is there a restrictor on them that can be opened without a key and in a single operation?

[nod]

8 minutes ago, tg77 said:

Interesting!.... are they also fire escape windows and if so is there a restrictor on them that can be opened without a key and in a single operation?

They are escape windows That tilt and open in and can be locked 

I work on lots of new houses with these 

Signed off three weeks ago by LA Building Control 

[tg77]

15 minutes ago, ProDave said:

If the previous owners removed the guards, then if they had half an ounce of sense they would have kept them, ready to be put back in the event of them being needed upon sale.  Have you even asked them if they still exist somewhere?

Agree completely. 

 

I have shared the survey findings with the sellers and they have only confirmed that they removed the guard rails and suggested that we could reinstate them ourselves if we wanted. I presumed this to mean that they no longer had them to put back themselves, but I will confirm this.

 

I'm holding off asking the current owners to do anything for the moment whilst we're still waiting for the surveyor to be specific about the extent of his observations. For example, in addition to the low sill height findings for the two upper floor sash windows, there was another observation that 'some upper floor window openings do not meet Building Regulations for fire escape' due to not meeting opening requirements. Clearly we need to know which specific windows have this issue and the parameters that are not being met.  The current owners have kindly shared photos and measurements showing that all the other bedrooms have 'floating-mullion' type windows that open fully and clearly meet the minimum escape size requirements. There are however two other upper floor windows in the landing and stairwell that have a fixed mullion that likely do not meet escape regulations, but I presume that not to be an issue as they are not considered 'habitable' spaces? Again, need the surveyor to confirm all this.

 

So at the moment I'm just information gathering (hence posting on here for all the valuable feedback!) which we will then use to help inform what we decide to ask of the current owners to resolve these issues.

[tg77]

35 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Why - your solicitor should be insisting you do! Or at least he should be.

 

Another issue is he representing two parties, is that even allowed, as it a conflict of interest?

Sorry, should have clarified. As mentioned in a later post, I have contacted the sellers to ask them about this and that's how I know they removed the guard rail. They've also shared photos and measurements to help us understand the scale and scope of the issue which we've also been grateful for. We just now need the Surveyor to share the details of their findings and what would satisfy them from a resolution perspective.

 

As for the solicitor conflict of interest, I'm not sure of the legalities, but I understand they are obligated to inform the lender of any issues relating to the property that might impact their decision to lend... perhaps a requirement for the solicitor being on the lenders mortgage panel? 

[Kelvin]

They are absolutely obligated and now that you know of this issue it can’t be ignored. The lender might choose to lend anyway or might not until it’s resolved. 

[tg77]

24 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

They are absolutely obligated and now that you know of this issue it can’t be ignored. The lender might choose to lend anyway or might not until it’s resolved. 

Even if we can get the issues resolved and survey report updated accordingly and re-issued prior to exchange of contracts?

[Kelvin]

They are giving you time to resolve it from what you said. So sort that out and there’s nothing to tell them. Even if they did tell the lender they’ll be looking for a satisfactory resolution so will give you time to resolve anyway. 

Edited July 22 by Kelvin

[JohnMo]

27 minutes ago, tg77 said:

Even if we can get the issues resolved and survey report updated accordingly and re-issued prior to exchange of contracts?

Bought a lot of houses, and found if it's not in a solicitors letter, it just gets ignored, pushed back and lands in your lap for no good reason. Make what you say above, part of the contract of sale. Let them faff about and fix it, not you - it's not yours until you hand over the cash and get the keys. If they want to sell it will be sorted super quick.

[Kelvin]

29 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Bought a lot of houses, and found if it's not in a solicitors letter, it just gets ignored, pushed back and lands in your lap for no good reason. Make what you say above, part of the contract of sale. Let them faff about and fix it, not you - it's not yours until you hand over the cash and get the keys. If they want to sell it will be sorted super quick.

Exactly. The market is slow in much of the country. You are a committed buyer. The seller should jump to it but doesn’t stop you from researching solutions too as you are. 

[tg77]

I received some responses from our surveyor today regarding my initial questions about their report.

 

The surveyor has stated that the low sill heights in two of the bedrooms are the reason the windows do not comply with Building Regulations for fire escape.

 

However, everything I’ve read suggests there is no minimum sill height requirement for fire escape - only requirements around the minimum size of the opening and a maximum sill height of 1100mm.

 

My understanding was that issues related to low sill heights on upper floors are more relevant to the Building Regulations on Protection from Falling. As I understand it, those rules apply when the internal floor level is less than 800mm from the window opening, and the external ground level is more than 600mm below that.

 

Am I missing something here? Or could I be misunderstanding how these regulations are being applied?

 

I’m not particularly comfortable challenging a RICS-qualified surveyor, but I’m struggling to make sense of what they’re saying. I’ve already replied to them with my understanding and asked for further clarification - but I suspect I’ll be put right on here much more quickly!

[Mr Punter]

You are quite right.  There is no minimum cill height for escape windows, just maximum.  The windows would fail down on part K if you were making an application for Building Regs but if they have restrictors or a barrier they would be OK.  WTF is this guy on about?  Pathetic.

 

In the past I have both added and removed door closers and added and removed window locks to satisfy Building Regs.  Meanwhile at Grenfell it was considered fine to add a load of highly flammable material to the exterior of an otherwise fire resistant high rise block.