Idemnity Insurance for lack of listed building consent

[Charlie_B]

We're in process of buying a Grade II listed cottage. The current owners have fitted an en-suite and were told by the contractor that listed building consent would not be required.

AIUI only the council can decided whether or not listed building consent is required, and also there is no "time expired" with listed building consent as there is with normal planning consent

Can you get idemnity insurance to cover cost of having to undo work done if required to do this at some point in the future? Is it a good idea? Is it better to risk opening up a can of worms and asking the council before exchange?

thanks
Charlie

 

[sarahj]

In my very limited experience:

1. Your solicitor should request evidence from the sellers that listed consent was not required. i.e. written permission from the council - if they are so confident a quick call to the council asking for a written note confirming this shouldn't be a problem, should it? :wink:

2. I think I've read somewhere that legal action can be taken by the council against both the owners and the contractors for work done on a listed building without permission.

3. I would definitely ask the council if no1 was not answered satisfactorily

3. I think you can get insurance for this - I have heard of solicitors asking vendors to pay for the insurance if the vendors cannot come up with the right paperwork.

Others on this forum should be able to come up with the techy bits.

 

[middi]

I am not sure if you can insure against such a thing, after all if I was the insurance co. I would want to see a letter from the conservation body that the layout and aspect of the building is acceptable as it stands.

This then would defeat the objective. You can ask the vendor to indemnify you I suppose.

As to needing listed building consent for an on-suite, this is not strictly true, You can ADD anything internally in a listed building provided that no structural damage is incurred.

There is always exeptions, this is why a quick call to the CO in a friendly and polite manner is necessary.

As to opening a can of worms now, well, it may save you dealing with a couple of barrels full later on. It is a question of choise.

 

[Juju]

I'm currently in the same situation as it seemed that no evidence of LBC existed. My solicitor advised me not to contact the council myself and says it is up to the vendor to provide details and indemnity insurance. I think from reading previous threads, this isn't really worth the paper it's printed on but if that's her legal advice then I'm doing what she says!

Luckily in my case it's now turned out from searches that LBC was in fact granted for the extensive renovation by a previous owner some years ago but the current owners have no documents and they've been told to get them before contracts are exchanged. I think there are other minor things that current owners have done which they claimed didn't need LBC but they're things we'd change anyway (like an ugly lean-to) so aren't going to pursue that.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

As to needing listed building consent for an on-suite, this is not strictly true, You can ADD anything internally in a listed building provided that no structural damage is incurred.

For the avoidance of doubt, I must point out that the above statement is not true.

ANY work which affects the character of a listed building, inside or out, (which could include adding things) requires LBC.

As to the original question, I have heard vague rumours of insurance being available, but you really should follow sarahj's advice upthread.

 

[Nemesis]

I think that any insurer who issued an indemnity where what is in fact a criminal act is concerned would be on very dodgy ground!

 

[middi]

Gareth, I am a conservationist and my argument is that if I want a freestanding walk in wardrobe against my internal stud/wattle and daub walls which happens to be internally lined and sealed for a shower unit and a sink to be fitted, I cannot see on what grounds you could stop it.

Personally I would ask you first, after all I am not damaging the building which you are supposed to be protecting from "vandalism", other people may not ask. Are you going to make them remove it ?.( question)

Admittedly there may be some instances where even this may not be appropriate. That is another story.

 

[Nemesis]

I can see grounds for not allowing it in many circumstances.

Unless it is genuinely freestanding and not a fixture - in which case there would be difficulties with the plumbing.

 

[middi]

I totally agree with obtaining consent from a CO as to ANY minimal interference with a listed building, BUT !!!!....., I would strongly disagree if I had to be told in which part of the internal space of the building I would need to have a cr*p or get cleaned.

Of course that would involve some plumbing pipes, even in a totally freestanding structure, well, that has to be part of the evolution of the building.

( just a point of view Nemesis ).

 

[Nemesis]

Messing about with internal space may well require LBC. It could ruin some buildings... and the plumbing and other work may ruin important historic fabric.

It all depends on the building, but if anything of this nature is considered then talk to the CO first.

Or you could end up with action taken agianst you.

 

[middi]

If it means messing with the building so I don't mess myself, the building will get it, CO or no CO.

( of course you are right, just feeling in a sarcastic mood).

 

[Nemesis]

I'm afraid the Act and guidance and all the rest of it takes no account of your plumbing probs, Middi - just stop eating those curries.

 

[Penners]

Charlie - I believe such single-premium insurance is available, but the best person to advise you is your solicitor.

However, there is one other "worst-case" point to consider. Just suppose that the en-suite did not have LBC, and the council insisted that it must be removed. If you were insured, then presumably the insurers would pay for this to be done, but would you still like the house without the en-suite? And would its removal have devalued the property?

 

[Nemesis]

I think that such insurance would be hard to obtain as it would insure you from possible action being taken against what is actually a criminal act - it's not like many other indemnities.

Any insurance company issuing this would be on very dodgy ground.

What next - rob a bank, take out an insurance against getting caught and going to jail, in which case it will pay out?

 

[middi]

Now, this makes good sense Nemesis.

 

[Penners]

Now, this makes good sense Nemesis.

Yeah - which bank shall we rob, Middi? The insurance premium can come out of your share.

 

[NT]

I dont see how such an arrangement could make financial sense for the insurance company. Work has been done without lbc, so the odds of it proving non compliant are high rather than remote. Whats it going to cost the insurance co to sort it, 10k? So if they estimated risk at 50/50 theyd hahve to charge over 5k for the policy, or more realistically say no thanks. It just doesnt add up.

If you buy without lbc, thats what you're buying.


NT