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? 

[Roger440]

9 hours ago, torre said:

@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? 

 

No, not really. You say its low risk. Its not. Its NO risk.

 

There is no recorded case of enforcement after 10 years never mind 20. Even under the new regulations, which dont apply in this case, its still limited to 10 years.

 

The only beneficiary of a worthless insurance to cover a non existent risk is the conyeyancer who gets a kick back from selling said policy. Which of course is why they push them. Its certainly not to cover off any risk.

 

Yes you are right i wouldnt bother in this case. And didnt when i bought my current house. 

[kandgmitchell]

Under the old system the LA had a year to take enforcement action unless they applied for a High Court injunction. In all my years at an LA I'd never heard of that being done. It certainly is not going to happen for a 20 year old garage conversion I can tell you!

[torre]

Cottingham vs Attey Bower & Jones is one reason conveyancers usually push for indemnity policies (as the conveyancer was held liable for £40,000 of damages)

 

On 21/03/2026 at 08:31, Roger440 said:

no recorded case of enforcement after 10 years

 

Well a quick search throws up this enforcement action in respect of a loft conversion after 12 years, again with costs in the region of £40k, so I'll stick with my description of 'low risk' rather than 'no risk'.

 

There's simply no good reason not to seek cover from the vendor.

 

Of course, none of this internet point scoring should distract that in the big picture, lack of building regs approval is more likely to highlight a risk of work done poorly than a risk of legal action.

[Gus Potter]

On 20/03/2026 at 07:40, torre said:

Building control enforcement is just one of any number of risks you don't think you need worry about until occasionally you do

 

On 17/03/2026 at 11:10, WhiskyInTheJar said:

It relates to an adjoining garage which was converted into an extension of the living room.

As purely an observation. Many posts on BH relate to BC / Planning and in the round tend to take, let's say.. a disparaging view. 

 

In my day job as an SE I often get phone calls about this kind of stuff. Many calls go along the lines of.. Gus can you give us a report that says it's all ok. In particular we would like you to say by all Ok we mean.. everything is ok.. structure, insulation , condensation control etc! We would love you to say this as we want to maybe get lending and later on when we come to sell we need your paper work. But to report (and for my PI to cover you and I) I need to know if there is anything that is going to compromise say timbers.. hence I need to look at say condensation risk, weathering details and so on.

 

I could of course say.. the structure is fine.. but caveat, as I must do, to protect myself.. and then the lender will ask for more detail. We end up back at square one. 

 

On 19/03/2026 at 23:00, Nickfromwales said:

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

Nick. In technical, insurance and SE reporting terms this needs clarification. Most of this stuff is designed for a 50 year life span. SE's design on the probability of the maximum load occuring over a 50 year period.

 

It is fool hardy to say if after 20 years it's going to be fine going onwards as the structure may have not been fully loaded up yet. In the next 30 years it may be subject to the full design load. This is the difference between someone like me that is going to have to carry the can if someone gets hurt later, or a claim is made and someone who has lots of experience.. but only 30  years of it! 

 

This is not an abstact concept. An easy example is say a loft conversion. You have a kid.. they grow up to be a rugby prop, they ask their mates round to the attic room, they party, there is a bit of "dynamic" loading. Very quickly you can exceed the design load and eat into the factor of safety.

 

Another is snow loading on a roof. Now over the last decades we have not had lot's of snow. But the climate is changing. The air can be warmer, the cold fronts more defined. The risk is that we get a heavy dumping of wet and heavy snow that traditionally would blow off a roof to some extent. Wet snow just sits there.

 

I base my SE judgements partly on the experience of SE's and Civil Engineers over that last 200 years (often more that) which have been woven into the modern design codes we use today.  This then allows insurer's to write premiums and banks to lend. 

 

Now insurers understand how SE's approach risk and vis versa,  the probability of failure and where they can seek recourse to say an SE's policy. 

 

On 17/03/2026 at 11:10, WhiskyInTheJar said:

I'm in the process of purchasing a property and the below has come up on the searches.

 

Probably the thing you should be concerned with most is to ensure it is not going to fall down or later the structure start protesting. 

On 17/03/2026 at 11:10, WhiskyInTheJar said:

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

Really!

 

 

 

[saveasteading]

On 18/03/2026 at 11:08, kandgmitchell said:

chance of enforcement action after all this time is vanishingly small.

A lot of conversions are done without planning or building regs on this assumption. That doesn't make it right or safe.

If neighbours don't alert the planners then that won't be enforced. 

If it's still a garage spec but with people living in it then that is a safety risk as well as enforcement.

The vendor  could apply for retrospective approvals but hasn't. They want you to take the risks.