Is my conveyancer right or wrong here? Building Regs signed off?

[WhiskyInTheJar]

Hi,

 

I'm in the process of purchasing a property and the below has come up on the searches. It relates to an adjoining garage which was converted into an extension of the living room.

 

Our conveyancer says that this is proof that building regs were signed off.

 

However, since the person who carried out the work had only owned the property since 25 January 2006, I think the 17/02/2006 date reflects when notice was given of works to be carried out, 28/02/2006 reflects when the notification was accepted, and I suspect that 12/06/2006 represents the electrician signing off their own work under CPS, presumably nearer the end of the conversion project.

 

I'd really appreciate the thoughts of anyone with a bit more experience and understanding in this area. Thanks in advance!

[Redbeard]

The lack of a completion cert suggests it has not been signed off! (Surely). I always received completion certs for my jobs. The heading says 'Date of Completion Cert (If issued)' and the comment is N/A. I would read that as 'It is not applicable because there is no date, because there is no completion cert', but I see that in this case they use it as 'not available'. Either way I don't think that helps you, as it could be 'not available' 'cause they lost it, or because there never was one.

 

Of course I could be wrong....

[torre]

7 hours ago, WhiskyInTheJar said:

since the person who carried out the work had only owned the property since 25 January 2006, I think the 17/02/2006 date reflects when notice was given of works to be carried out, 28/02/2006 reflects when the notification was accepted,

I agree this is the more likely explanation. 

 

Tell your conveyancer you don't think that's sufficient proof and you require a copy of the completion certificate, or (given it's some time ago) an indemnity policy from the vendor. These are cheap and easy for the vendor to obtain (but only cover you against enforcement action, not defective work).

 

If your conveyancer is reluctant then ask if they'll indemnity you themselves based on having given advice - I'm pretty sure they won't.

[kandgmitchell]

That reference in the first column - DEXBN I would assume to be Domestic Extension Building Notice. Thus there will be no deposited plans of the works and the site inspection notes of the officer/inspector involved would be the only formal records of what has been done. In your case I would echo the advice above, ask for the completion certificate although that conversion is 20 years old and if there are no obvious problems you may wish to take a view....

 

The chance of enforcement action after all this time is vanishingly small. How much do you want the property?

[Roger440]

Theres zero possibility of enforcement action 20 years after the event, so to be blunt who cares?

 

Theres no legal requirement that says you cant buy a house without the relevant paperwork.

 

If you think its badly done,get someone competent to look at it. Its only a garage conversion.

 

[Nickfromwales]

On 18/03/2026 at 18:30, Roger440 said:

Theres zero possibility of enforcement action 20 years after the event, so to be blunt who cares?

 

Theres no legal requirement that says you cant buy a house without the relevant paperwork.

 

If you think its badly done,get someone competent to look at it. Its only a garage conversion.

 

In a nutshell.

 

If it's still standing with no 'San Andreas' cracks then it's time to drop to DEFCON 5.

[torre]

On 18/03/2026 at 18:30, Roger440 said:

so to be blunt who cares

Typically it's mortgage lenders who care, which may or may not apply in @WhiskyInTheJar's case, but may apply when they in turn need to sell.

 

Lenders need to cover the small but tangible risk of enforcement action requiring works that devalue the property (and it's worth buyers asking for the same)

 

The risks are low ( especially this example) but say next door make a large subsidence claim and it turns out your uninspected extension foundations undermined them then enforcement action would likely follow.

 

Conveyancing is about looking at the title and asking is there anything here that might impact the buyer in future, and if there is the simplest answer is usually ask the seller solve the problem. (Not a conveyancer but read up when thinking of doing my own).

 

Building control enforcement is just one of any number of risks you don't think you need worry about until occasionally you do... The right of way through your garden that 'nobody ever uses', the century old covenant not to add another building, the possessory title where occasionally a distant relative turns out to hold the property deeds and a claim to ownership. 

 

All remote risks but very damaging, easy and cheap for the seller to get indemnity insurance for.

[Roger440]

13 hours ago, torre said:

Typically it's mortgage lenders who care, which may or may not apply in @WhiskyInTheJar's case, but may apply when they in turn need to sell.

 

Lenders need to cover the small but tangible risk of enforcement action requiring works that devalue the property (and it's worth buyers asking for the same)

 

The risks are low ( especially this example) but say next door make a large subsidence claim and it turns out your uninspected extension foundations undermined them then enforcement action would likely follow.

 

Conveyancing is about looking at the title and asking is there anything here that might impact the buyer in future, and if there is the simplest answer is usually ask the seller solve the problem. (Not a conveyancer but read up when thinking of doing my own).

 

Building control enforcement is just one of any number of risks you don't think you need worry about until occasionally you do... The right of way through your garden that 'nobody ever uses', the century old covenant not to add another building, the possessory title where occasionally a distant relative turns out to hold the property deeds and a claim to ownership. 

 

All remote risks but very damaging, easy and cheap for the seller to get indemnity insurance for.

 

Ive had several mortgages and not once has it ever been raised. And all the houses affected has some degree if non compliance.

 

The indeminity insurance is so cheap, because the risk is essentially zero. The cost of any insurance is a good clue.

 

Even in your hypothetical example, there is no chance of enforcement action. None. An insurance claim from next door, possibly. 

 

If everyone followed your line of thinking, no houses would ever get sold. Fortunately, your approach works in favour of those of us able to take a more pragmatic view  . Especially as most BC sign off isnt worth the paper its written on. Anyone thinking it gives any kind of gurantee or the standard of work should think again.

 

Of course, for works done after october 23, things are different. I can get 2 years prision for fitting a window myself!!!

[torre]

@Roger440 I think we've both made the points that 1/ the risk is low, 2/ the cover is cheap and 3/ that it doesn't cover defective work. 

 

Isn't the only point of difference that one of us would ask for the cheap policy and the other wouldn't bother?