Building Regulations: Cottingham v Attey Bower & Jones Re-Visited

Time and time again I am asked by buyer’s solicitors for indemnity insurance to address the absence of building regulation approval for home improvements such as an extension.  In the majority of these cases there is no justification for the cost of establishing an indemnity policy and though I do my best to argue my case I am frequently met with misconceived responses. The truth is that many conveyancers do not have the time to consider the law and the easy route is to ask for insurance. 

I am sure I am not alone when I say I did not become a lawyer to ignore the law and to follow blindly practices which have through laziness become  the norm.  I recognise conveyancing is very much rooted in practice but there is applicable case law and statutory provision which ought at times to be considered. 

So when asked for indemnity insurance to address the absence of building regulation approval and or a completion certificate a competent conveyancer should look at the facts and apply the law accordingly.  The offer of indemnity insurance look be looked upon as a last resort option. 

The first question to consider is when was the work carried out.  If it was completed within the last 12 months then my view would be to insist on the seller seeking retrospective  building regulation approval/completion certificate.   The Law Society's Conveyancing Handbook, makes it clear that only where work had been done in the preceding 12 months should the purchaser's solicitor enquire whether building regulations consent was obtained and complied with. Don’t even consider indemnity insurance in these cases.  This is a sticking plaster and in the words of Taylor Swift ‘Band-aids don't fix bullet holes’!  Most lenders would also require  retrospective consent remembering of course that the lack of approval and or a completion certificate should be reported. 

If it was carried out over 12 months then the seller should be asked whether it was work undertaken under concealment which would not of course be the case if planning permission was sought.  The seller should also be asked if building regulation approval has ever been refused.  It should also be ascertained with reference to your clients survey whether the work is likely to give rise to serious threat to life and safety. If for example the work was undertaken 20 years ago and the works are viewed by the surveyor as sound it would be difficult to see how a local authority could even contemplate injunctive action under section 36(6) of the Buildings Act.  

Keep in mind when asked for that costly and often unnecessary indemnity policy that it is there to protect the client from enforcement action under s36(6) not to provide protection if the works subsequently prove defective.   So one has to weigh up the risk of enforcement and in doing this it well worth keeping in mind that in 1998 an enforcement concordat was signed and adopted by almost all local government organisations with an enforcement function. This requires building control departments when carrying out enforcement to take a consistent approach and treat matters with proportionality, effectively making it unthinkable that injunction proceedings would now be utilised in relation to a minor item of domestic building work that took place years before.

Birmingham building control unit, the largest in the country, only had to resort to court action in five cases in 2003.

In cases where I argue indemnity insurance is not necessary or indeed required those competent conveyancers acting for the buyer often trot out the argument that following  the decision in Cottingham v Attey Bower & Jones [2000] PNLR 557 there is no longer any time limit on enforcement and therefore indemnity insurance should be sought in every instance where there is no building regulation approval.

This is an interesting authority and one which is not really based on the risk of enforcement but has more to do with the defectiveness of works carried out.  In Cottingham the buyer's claim related to the cost of rectification of the defective works and not loss arising out of enforcement action. In fact there was no enforcement action taken or indeed threatened.  The claim would have been brought against the buyer’s surveyor and the seller had it not been for doubt as to their financial standing. 

Its is also based on the the failure of the buyer’s solicitor to make adequate inquiry about building regulation approval.   This would suggest that if a buyer asks about building approval and discovers this has not been sought then if in the judgment of the buyer’s solicitor there is no or little risk of enforcement ( relying for instance on the survey) it could be argued with justification that the buyer’s solicitor in not  pursuing the issue has acted in the best interests of his or her client.  The only proviso to this is that the buyer client should be warned there is a risk of enforcement albeit a minimal one. Providing this advice is given it would be difficult to see a Cottingham situation arising particular in the light of the 1998 Concordat. 

In short there is a need to look at each individual case on its own merits and to be bold enough to make a judgement call based on both case law, statute and the practice  direction of the enforcement agencies. 

MJP Conveyancing are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Are you allowing your clients to be ripped off by indemnity insurers?

The cost of moving could in some transactions be reduced if more lawyers took time to consider planning and building regulation requirements more closely. 

The knee jerk reaction by some to jump to the tune of indemnity indemnity insurers and take out unnecessary insurance is inexcusable. Often clients are asked to pay several hundred pounds for insurance which if the lawyer took more time to consider the case would not be required. 

In this article I try and set out my thoughts on what lawyers should be thinking and doing when considering the planning and building regulations requirements of changes and additions to a property being purchased or sold by a client. 

If you know about an alteration or addition to a property that has happened in the last four years or a change in use within the past 10 years the yes insist on seeing the planning.  It's important to check the conditions if any to ensure there has been full compliance. If consent doesn't exist then indemnity insurance can be considered.  Check with the lender if the client is purchasing with a mortgage since the lender may not depending on the circumstances be willing to lend. 

However if changes have taken outside these periods ( 4 years where there is planning consent without conditions and 10 when there are conditions or change of use ) is it really necessary to push for sight of the planning consent. If you know the work was not concealed and the local search result shows no breach of condition is it really necessary to call for and par for indemnity insurance? 

The Planning Act 1990 states that lack of consent for work completed over 4 years ago is unenforceable and there is immunity for breach of condition or change of use after 10 years. You should if acting for the buyer ask the seller to confirm that the work was not concealed as in the case of Welwyn Hatfield Council v. SSCLG [2010] EWCA Civ 26 & R. (Fidler) v. SSCLG - [2011] EWCA Civ 1159

Why waste money on indemnity insurance which is wholly unnecessary and only serves to put easy money into the pockets of indemnity insurers. 

Turning now to building regulation approval. If the works were pre 1985 there is no need to worry if no approval or completion certificate exists. Local  Authorities were not compelled to keep records until the advent of the Building Act 1984. So dont be tempted to take out insurance. 

The Buildings Act 1984 was the first time that the Authority was required to keep records of Buildings Regulations. 

If the works were carried out post 1985 and a Building Regulations Completion Certificate is revealed by your search there is no need to seek a copy unless you are unsure about what it covers. 

If work was carried out in the past 12 months and there is no reference to it in the local search report then report to lender if purchasing with a mortgage and  check with Valuer/Surveyor as to structural integrity of the alteration and the issues that arise if the client were to undertake additional works.  In this situation always seek subject to the lender’s approval indemnity insurance because  the Local Authority has rights to serve a Stop or Enforcement notice within 12 months under the Buildings Act 1984. Consider whether a retrospective certificate should be sought. 

If work undertaken more than 12 months ago and there is no evidence of a completion certificate then  advise the client of lack of  availability of a Completion Certificate and to check with Valuer/Surveyor as to structural integrity of the alteration and the issues that arise if they wish to undertake additional works.    

If the surveyor has concerns then if there is a lender involved advise straight away and consider seeking a retrospective certificate or indemnity insurance. Advise the client on the exposure to enforcement action. These situations are the exception rather than the rule. 

If there are no concerns its unlikely the client would be exposed to enforcement action because  there would be nothing in the public interest to support an application for an injunction under s.36(6) of the Buildings Act 1984 to seek demolition of the works unless the works has been concealed and or present a health and safety issue to the public.  In my opinion don't waste money on indemnity insurance. 

So what about installation certificates?

The same applies as above and to help I have put together a draft reply to deal with those countless requests for charitable donations to the indemnity insurers coffers. 

This is the reply I suggest when a seller is asked for indemnity insurance for the absence of a FENSA or other installation certificate where these are shown to exist in the buyers local authority search:

It is clear from the result of the local authority search that the installation was undertaken according to requisite building regulations and therefore there is no scope to argue your client will be exposed to enforcement action.  Indemnity insurance is therefore unnecessary and will not be offered.  If you disagree then we would ask you to cite legal authority to support your argument that indemnity cover is necessary and indeed essential in terms of protecting your client’s interests. 

The reply of a seller when asked for indemnity insurance for the absence of a FENSA or other installation certificate where this is not disclosed in the result of the local authority search would I suggest be as follows: 

The time for enforcement action ended some time ago and unless the Local Authority can show that the installation presents a danger to the public then there is no scope to argue your client will be exposed to enforcement action. Indemnity insurance is therefore unnecessary and will not be offered.  If you disagree then we would ask you to cite legal authority to support your argument that indemnity cover is necessary and indeed essential in terms of protecting your client’s interests. 

As mentioned above if there is no evidence of building regulation compliance your client is better off paying for a competent contractor to inspect and report on the installation than wasting money on indemnity insurance. The risk of enforcement action is very low compared with the cost of replacement if the work was carried out haphazardly. 

Do keep in mind every transaction is different and the above general observations and guidance may not always apply. If you are a homebuyer or seller you should always take advice from an experienced conveyancer. The above is offered as guidance rather than advice that can be relied upon. 

Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Don't put your client's conservatory at risk

The very first thing to establish is whether what you are building actually is a conservatory. 

There is no definition in the Regulations of exactly what constitutes a conservatory. This can make it hard to judge whether what is built will be be regarded by your Local Authority as a conservatory or an extension. 

This is crucial as as extension usually requires planning consent and is subject to greater building regulation requirements, while a conservatory usually does not require planning consent and the building regulation requirements are much more relaxed.

Conveyancers are good at asking questions about the planning and building regulation consent history behind conservatories forming part of properties being purchased, but less attentive to analysing and applying the answers received.  

Below are some general questions ( with guidance on how to treat the answers) which may help. They are not definitive and you should always when considering these matters have reference to the Planning Portal. 

Was planning permission required?

Is there a wall within the existing external dwelling which exists between the dwelling and the newly constructed conservatory? If there is not then the general rule is that the work will be viewed as an extension and planning permission would be required.

Was building regulation approval required?

Is it built at ground level?   If not and is more than a single storey in height then building regulation approval would be required.

Does it have a floor area of less than 30 square meters i.e. the same as a parking space for a car?  If it is more, then building regulation would be required.

Does the glazing comply with Part N of the building regulations?  If not then building re building regulation would be required.

Does the electrical work have its own ring main, or is extended from an existing room classed as a special location, such as a kitchen? If so it must comply with Part P of the Building Regulations, which deals with electrical safety. If not then building regulation approval would be required.

Does it have an independent heating system with separate temperature and on/off controls? If not then building regulations would be required.

Is there a new opening within the existing dwelling which creates access into the new conservatory if so then this will require building regulation approval? 

It is important to note that even if building regulation approval is not required for the conservatory construction the glazing and the electrical work would still need separate consents.

Keep also in mind that if you are acting for a purchaser and have concerns about consents it is important to check the detailed requirements which you can find on the Planning Portal: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/conservatories/

Care must be taken because if a problem subsequently emerges then enforcement action can be taken by the Local Authority, which could result in the demolition of the extension.

MJP conveyancing are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Save our Countryside

Close your eyes, cast you mind back to when you last visited the countryside. Remember how beautiful and tranquil everywhere looked, and how relaxed I bet you felt.  Now keep those thoughts and just think how you would feel if the tranquil and idyllic setting you are remembering was suddenly turned into a battlefield with 40 to 50 excitable people running around in combat gear and  repeatedly  firing a paintball gun and shouting and screaming?.  How would you feel when the landscape that you were escaping too was littered with smoke bombs and inflatable objects reminiscent to an episode of ‘It’s a Knockout’? I bet you would not be too pleased.

This may all sound like the promo for a Paul McKenna self-help CD, but there is a serious edge to it.  The fact is that over the past 12 months or so there has an increasing number of planning applications seeking permission to make use of large areas of our countryside for urban purposes. The worrying aspect is that a vast number of these are being passed even in areas where settlement limits apply.   The consequence of this worrying trend is that it has and continues to adversely impact on the visual attributes of our countryside as well as the amenity of those who live within it and the ecology.  In short there are many areas of our countryside that are becoming urbanized.

So where is the justification for this?  I am not really sure but a clue may be found in the case of a pending application for change of use to allow a Norfolk farmer to use woodlands and agricultural land, in an area of the beautiful and mainly unspoilt Wensum Valley, north of Norwich (Ringland) for the purposes of operating a paint balling park.  

I along with others living within the area have over the past couple of weeks been working hard to oppose this application and during our campaign we have come across wide support from local people and also people from around the country.  We have come very few who see any benefit from turning this lovely piece of countryside into a noisy and visually unpleasant combat zone.  However a local Councillor at a recent meeting said he thought it would be good for the area as it would create jobs.  He added with an air of arrogance that the Council had recently received a directive from Government to do all they can to allow development of this type to take place if this in turn created job opportunities.

It is a sad state of affairs when one of the last barriers in place to ensure our countryside is protected appears to have been removed because of economic pressures.  I am sure David Cameron did not intend for Councils to forget their obligation towards the protection of the countryside when his Government issued the directive, and I am even more certain that it was not intended to be acted upon without giving thought to other equally important planning considerations.  The daft thing about all of this that the farmer in question believes only 2 full time jobs will be created.

I seriously question whether the sacrifice of the local wildlife inhabitants, the loss of amenity to those who live in the area and the destruction of a piece of countryside that plays an important part in bringing tourists to the area, is worth the ‘benefit’ of creating two jobs.

I would invite you to add your support to our campaign to protect the countryside from unwanted and wholly unnecessary development of this type by lodging your views with the local planning authority – Broadland District Council planning.administration@broadland.gov.uk .   Just keep in mind the next application of this type could be on your doorstep! 

Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Two thirds of conservatories built require planning permission - conveyancers beware!

One of the most contentious areas of conveyancing concerns planning permission and building regulations or rather the lack of them, in relation to the erection of a conservatory.    

A large number of properties when sold include a conservatory and one that was probably built within the past 10 years.  Not many people when erecting a conservatory consider planning and building regulations, mainly because they rely on the suppliers to advise. Consequently there exist a large number of conservatories that have been built in contravention of planning and or building regulations.

So what should you consider when building a conservatory.   The first step to take is to contact the local planning department and provide them with the dimensions and other design aspects and seek guidance.  Try also the following website:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/conservatories/

Don’t rely on your supplier as some are only concerned with taking your money!

In the hope it will help here are some pointers:

Building Regulations

Normally, to be exempt from the regulations the conservatory will need to meet the following criteria:

Built at ground level

Be less than 30 square metres in floor area

At least 50% of area that will form the external boundary / edge of the conservatory must be glazed and 75% of the roof area to be covered with either glass or polycarbonate

Must be separated from the house by an external quality door, patio door or French doors.

There should be an independent heating system with separate temperature and on/off controls

Glazing and the electrical installation must comply with IEE and building regulations

Even if the conservatory is exempt any structural opening created to link the house to the conservatory will require building regulation approval.

Planning Permission

Around two thirds of all conservatories require planning permission.

Under present legislation (and it may change soon ) normally you will not require planning permission if you meet with the following conditions:

It (and other buildings if any ) covers less than 50% of the garden surrounding the dwelling and permitted development has not been removed

It does no face any road

It is not 20m or less from a road or public footpath.

If built within 2m of the boundary line the highest point at that junction is no higher than 4m

Its depth on a detached property is no more than 4000 mm

Its depth on a semi-detached property is no more than 3000 mm

The maximum height is no more than 4000 mm

If built to the side elevation of a property it is no more than 4000 metres high and no more than 50% that of the original house

At least 50% of area that will form the external boundary / edge of the conservatory must be glazed and 75% of the roof area to be covered with either glass or polycarbonate.

Conservatories on listed building, national parks, Broads Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, conservation areas and World Heritage Sites will require permission

If in any doubt as mentioned contact your local planning department.

Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk