| Conveyancer/house selling advice 12:51 - May 11 with 1192 views | Sarge |
To cut a long story short: we’re selling our house. Sometime at least 15 years (and two owners ago) it had a rooflight conversion but there is no documentation pertaining to it. Buyers solicitors wanted me to pay for an indemnity against it. They wouldn’t give me a copy of the draft policy, just asked for a lump sum. I declined, saying that the work is > 10 years old, there’s no enforcement action that can be taken but that if they wanted an indemnity they would have to fund it themselves.
They didn’t like this. Buyers solicitors now saying that it might be structurally unsound and that I’m to organise and pay for a structural surveyor to assess it and then they’ll deduct any remediation from the purchase price. They’ve already had a homebuyers report done. As far as I’m aware I’m not obliged to organise and pay for additional surveys they may want? For the house I’m buying I organised and paid for additional surveys to look at damp.
I firmly believe their solicitors are trying it on, and when I didn’t acquiesce to their first attempt they tried something else. Am I in the wrong here, is it on me to be paying for whatever indemnity they decide they want or additional surveys etc? |  | | |  |
| Conveyancer/house selling advice on 13:03 - May 11 with 1107 views | _CliveBaker_ |
I found the process absolutely ridiculous last time I moved. I'm not sure if their conveyancer was particularly picky or its just the done thing now, but they asked for a crazy amount of things. In the end I just gave in, said i'd buy the indemnity policy as it was only about £100 and I like an easy life. I'd also got a decent price in a slow market so didn't want anything to jeopardise the sale going through.
It did make me realise whoever is underwriting such insurance is printing money. There's a zero % chance they'll ever need it.
Depending on how much the indemnity is you might be better off just sucking it up. Especially if you've got a good price / would screw the chain / might have to take less from another buyer etc. |  | | |
| Conveyancer/house selling advice on 13:03 - May 11 with 1104 views | mellowblue |
I haven't had to purchase a house since 1998, so am not too up to date, but that sounds like a solicitor trying it on (and covering their asses), as you suggest. If it is watertight after 10 years, where is the problem ? Common sense should prevail. Depends on your levels of desperation to sell of course, but I would stand firm. [Post edited 11 May 14:36]
| | | |
| Conveyancer/house selling advice on 13:05 - May 11 with 1093 views | Zx1988 |
Surveyor here.
Just for clarity - what do you mean when you say 'rooflight conversion'? Is this a loft conversion with Velux-type windows rather than a dormer?
You're bang on about the indemnity. Well outside the enforcement period, and it'll offer absolutely no protection in terms of quality. Crap conveyancers seem to see them as a universal panacea, whilst being blissfully unaware of their limitations.
You're under no obligation to arrange or pay for any surveys or inspections (or for an indemnity, for that matter). It's always a matter for negotiation, and will usually come down to your respective negotiating positions. I assume that the buyers' survey didn't identify any issues with the conversion other than the fact that it exists, and doesn't have any documentation?
If I'm right in my assumption about this being a loft conversion, you might be best advised to go with the indemnity as a quick (and possibly cheaper) solution, rather than risk someone opening up the structure and finding any number of potential issues. If you're unable to ascertain when it was built, one of the possible issues is determining what Building Regs it should have been constructed in accordance with.
BRegs often change, but aren't retrospectively enforceable. It may well be that your conversion complied with BRegs at the time of construction, but wouldn't apply now (the need for, for instance, mains-linked smoke alarms and fire doors). If the age is unknown, it could be that your buyers decide that they fancy dipping in to your pocket to bring the conversion in to line with modern BRegs.
If your buyers are intent on going down the inspection route, I would suggest an initial position that they pay for the inspection, and then any remedial works will be a subsequent discussion.
One area in which I see this a lot is with the typical mid-century bathroom extensions to Victorian bylaw terraces. They'll now be 50-70 years old, and usually won't have any documentation worth a damn. With those my general point of view is that, as long as I haven't found any concerning issues, they've stood there for a good half century at least, and any defects arising from poor construction or a lack of the relevant regulatory compliance would probably have made themselves known by now. It's only the most rubbish of conveyancers who'll still demand documents/indemnities/structural inspections in those circumstances.
Has your own solicitor offered their thoughts here? Assuming they're decent and experienced, they'll most likely be an absolute oracle on these sorts of things and, in particular, what is and isn't the done thing. [Post edited 11 May 13:16]
| |
| |
| Conveyancer/house selling advice on 13:16 - May 11 with 982 views | Sarge |
| Conveyancer/house selling advice on 13:05 - May 11 by Zx1988 |
Surveyor here.
Just for clarity - what do you mean when you say 'rooflight conversion'? Is this a loft conversion with Velux-type windows rather than a dormer?
You're bang on about the indemnity. Well outside the enforcement period, and it'll offer absolutely no protection in terms of quality. Crap conveyancers seem to see them as a universal panacea, whilst being blissfully unaware of their limitations.
You're under no obligation to arrange or pay for any surveys or inspections (or for an indemnity, for that matter). It's always a matter for negotiation, and will usually come down to your respective negotiating positions. I assume that the buyers' survey didn't identify any issues with the conversion other than the fact that it exists, and doesn't have any documentation?
If I'm right in my assumption about this being a loft conversion, you might be best advised to go with the indemnity as a quick (and possibly cheaper) solution, rather than risk someone opening up the structure and finding any number of potential issues. If you're unable to ascertain when it was built, one of the possible issues is determining what Building Regs it should have been constructed in accordance with.
BRegs often change, but aren't retrospectively enforceable. It may well be that your conversion complied with BRegs at the time of construction, but wouldn't apply now (the need for, for instance, mains-linked smoke alarms and fire doors). If the age is unknown, it could be that your buyers decide that they fancy dipping in to your pocket to bring the conversion in to line with modern BRegs.
If your buyers are intent on going down the inspection route, I would suggest an initial position that they pay for the inspection, and then any remedial works will be a subsequent discussion.
One area in which I see this a lot is with the typical mid-century bathroom extensions to Victorian bylaw terraces. They'll now be 50-70 years old, and usually won't have any documentation worth a damn. With those my general point of view is that, as long as I haven't found any concerning issues, they've stood there for a good half century at least, and any defects arising from poor construction or a lack of the relevant regulatory compliance would probably have made themselves known by now. It's only the most rubbish of conveyancers who'll still demand documents/indemnities/structural inspections in those circumstances.
Has your own solicitor offered their thoughts here? Assuming they're decent and experienced, they'll most likely be an absolute oracle on these sorts of things and, in particular, what is and isn't the done thing. [Post edited 11 May 13:16]
|
Thank you. Part of the loft was converted with the addition of two velux window/rooflights, a floor, radiator, and a permanently-down ladder for access. From what I’ve read this wouldn’t have required planning permission but should have been signed off from building control (and I assume wasn’t as there’s no documentation).
I know that to be a liveable space it should also have a proper stairway. We’ve only ever used it as storage and had no issue getting a mortgage or home insurance with it. | | | |
| Conveyancer/house selling advice on 13:19 - May 11 with 957 views | Zx1988 |
| Conveyancer/house selling advice on 13:16 - May 11 by Sarge |
Thank you. Part of the loft was converted with the addition of two velux window/rooflights, a floor, radiator, and a permanently-down ladder for access. From what I’ve read this wouldn’t have required planning permission but should have been signed off from building control (and I assume wasn’t as there’s no documentation).
I know that to be a liveable space it should also have a proper stairway. We’ve only ever used it as storage and had no issue getting a mortgage or home insurance with it. |
In which case I'd be tempted to tell them to jog on.
In its current configuration it's very much a deluxe loft space, and nothing more, which you already seem to appreciate.
Assuming that your agent has marketed the property (and the space) as such, any impression that the space is an extra useable room is of the buyers' own making. If they have designs on turning the space into a bedroom, my position would be that of course it's going to need additional work, and that's all on them. | |
| |
| Conveyancer/house selling advice on 13:22 - May 11 with 932 views | Cheshire_Tractor |
You're not obliged to pay for indemnity policies but then again neither is the buyer.
On it's own it can grate - why should I pay for this when I know it's fine? - but it depends how stubborn you both can afford to be and how much you or the buyer would be bothered if the sale falls through.
Looking at the big picture, it can be in your interest to pay a couple of hundred if it progresses a sale worth several hundred thousand pounds.
I wasn't happy with an indemnity policy proposed on my sale a few years ago. I got my solicitor to offer to split the cost and the buyer agreed. Might be worth a try. |  | | |
| Conveyancer/house selling advice on 13:49 - May 11 with 777 views | DJR |
From recollection of when I did conveyancing 40 odd years ago, the practice was for the buyer to pay for any indemnity (and not knock it off the price) but such indemnities tended to relate to things like restrictive covenants. And things may have moved on since then in terms of such matters being subject to negotiations.
It would seem the best option is an indemnity, and you could, for example, get a quote from the following link.
https://www.cli.co.uk/legal-in
If it ain't that much, I'd be inclined just to pay the buyer's costs of obtaining an indemnity, which would be in their name. [Post edited 11 May 14:58]
|  | | |
| Conveyancer/house selling advice on 14:23 - May 11 with 613 views | OldFart71 |
My Daughter has recently moved into a bungalow where a velux roof light was present. Nothing was picked up on the survey.
I don't believe it actually leaked but she got condensation dripping from it.
She has had a new one fitted. When the guy came to fit it the day wasn't very nice, dull and raining. So he put off the fitting. As I was house sitting we noticed the size was different to what the chap had ordered. But it seems that Velux do standardized sizes so it would have been one nearest to the measurements, He came back a week or so later and they fitted the Velux and had to make provision for the slightly different size.
As for your problem It should, if there were any problems it should have been picked up on the survey and negotiations made to take this into account.
Fortunately when we moved into where we are several of the changes made by the previous occupants were available in the form of documentation which we still have.
But this doesn't happen that often and any guarantee items may have had would have run out.
I tried to claim early last year as my conservatory roof leaked, but was turned down due to lack of maintenance as the triple polycarbonate was 20 years old and only has a life span of 10 years. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
