Regularisation Certificates on Flat Conversions

[matchmade]

I own a flat which was created in 1992 when a previous owner split the house into two without planning permission. The owner before me got legal acceptance of the situation from Planning and did up the flats, adding wired-in smoke and heat detectors, FD30 fire doors everywhere, FD30 plasterboard all round the staircase, FD30 plasterboard for the ceilings, and celotex insulation between my ceiling and the woman upstairs for the sound protection. He also rewired, replastered and replaced the kitchens and bathrooms with full redecoration. He didn't do the sound protection to the 2005 Building Regs because he didn't need to, and generally it's a pretty good job: the Fire Brigade and Building Control did an inspection and were happy.

However I'm now trying to sell and the purchaser's solicitor is demanding a "regularisation certificate" on the building works for the time it was created c. 1992. This will take months and cost me �500 just to apply for Building Control to look at it, never mind meeting every last finicky detail and the mess of building work. My solicitor and estate agent have never heard of someone asking for this, and my solicitor when I bought made no mention of it.

I'm inclined to just say goodbye to my buyer and hope the next one has a less fussy solicitor. Does anyone have any advice on how else to handle this? Of course the solicitor is protecting his client's interests but the flat is vastly better than any number of flat conversions from the 1970s to 90s, and I just think he's being unreasonable.

[buildersmate]

The critical words are in your last line of your 1st paragraph - "Building Control did and inpsection and were happy". If this is true then I'm not sure what the problem is. As you know, Regularisation Certificates are retrospectively issued by Building Control if building works were carried out without approval and inspection being done. They are nothing to do with Planning (Development Control) and anyway you say the previous owner got the Planning situation sorted out (after this many years, Planning Office would not be able to do anything anyway now). If the previous owner applied for BR approval then an inspection should have occurred on completion of the works, a certificate issued and the need for a Regularisation Certificate now would be irrelevant. In the first instance, talk to BC - they maintain records of work they have done and they will be able to confirm whether an Application was made by your predecessor. It may be that the application was made with interim inspections done but the project not fully signed off by BC. BC will be able to tell you which aspects were not signed off. Then you could decide what to do next. Using an application was made, no further Plans should be required. BC should be willing to come and inspect now for free because the project has never been closed. You do not need to have the CURRENT BR standards - those at the time of the works being done are those that are relevant. HTH and post again if looks like a no-goer - I have other ideas that may help you (indemnity insurance). BM

[matchmade]

I should have been clearer on the Building Control aspect: the previous owner did not seek building control approval of his works last year as he argued he was just a property owner choosing to upgrade an existing situation. He felt he wasn't doing any works because someone was requiring him to - the fireproofing and soundproofing were just done on his own initiative, to "do the right thing". Only the rewiring needed approval, which was done via self-certification by the electrician. He didn't want to have his builder's work assessed against contemporary building regulations - too much hassle, I suppose, and if Building Control had required approval and certification, he would have given up and sought to sell the flats as they stood, i.e. with Planning approval but no Building Control approval at any point.

What I meant was that I had Building Control round to assess the situation last month, and they said it appeared that the fire protection works were well done and would satisfy them, but they couldn't formally sign off against 1992 regulations without lots more detail from the builder (now moved) or physcial investigation of the fabric - taking up the upstairs flatholder's floorboards, for example.

My mortgage company and surveyor were satisfied with the quality of the flat to allow me to buy, and no-one, including myself, sought to investigate Building Control approval. I've offered an indemnity policy to my buyer but her solicitor has been saying she needs Regularisation, because although the insurance protects her against a Building Control action, it does nothing about the fact that the flat does not any certification - like hundreds of thousands of other flats in the UK.

[buildersmate]

Ah, now I understand better. Yes I think your buyer is being unreasonable. And you'd obviously already picked up on the indemnity insurance idea. I believe this may only be an issue if your buyer intends to rent out the property - there are hundreds of properties without BR approval and they get sold either by a satisfactory surveyor's report (as you did) which means the surveyor's prefessional indemnity insurance is up for grabs if a problem occurs, or through a single-premium indemnity insurance bought at the time of the purchase. If the property has been inspected by the fire authorities, does that imply it has a Fire Certificate? - surely the main thing a prospective investment buyer would be fussed about.

[matchmade]

Thanks buildersmate for your comments. The Fire Officer just inspected on request by me - free service, no Certificate unless requested - and said everything appeared to be OK from his POV, except the upstairs flat should really have windows that opened less than 800mm from the floor level to allow someone to escape. This isn't my concern but again my buyer's soliitor is saying he wants a Regularisation Certificate on the whole house, not just my flat, so this is the sort of thing he's saying he wants sorted out, even though I don't control it. The owner of upstairs is very unlikely to pay to have her generally fine windows replaced, just to help me sell my flat . . .

I've gone back to the buyer and said, sorry, but we think you're being unreasonable - take the indemnity or the sale's off. Unfortunately the solicitor has now opened Pandora's Box and the buyer's building society are aware, which probably means I've had it, although their surveyor said nothing about any of this - he actually complemented the way it had been converted!

[buildersmate]

Sorry I can't help further - this solicitor is being overcautious - its up for the surveyor to answer for this - how would the solicitor feel if the surveyor started commenting on the integrity of the property title. At a trivial level, the BR rules about egress from an escape window state that the height off the floor must be between 600mm and 1100mm (rooflight Velux) or 800mm to 1100mm (dormer window). (Not a maximum of 800mm). Part B of BR. You obviously know a fair bit about what you are doing.