Looking at Buying Grade 2 in East Midlands and struggling

[Jailhouse John]

Thinking of paying big bucks for early 17th C Grade 2 pile in East Midlands having negotiated sale of similar in Lune Valley (dont ask - too long to explain why).

3 storeys, mullions coming out of your ears, 3 bricked up Inglenooks, Attics with more rough hewn roof timbers exposed than you could imagine (which will make insulation a HUGE problem) plus huge areas of Lime Ash floors in Attic. No central heating, fantastic out buildings with cart sheds, gardeners rooms, stables, garages et al.

Had a meeting with local CO on site last week and he seemed a decent cove as we went thru my scope of work for renovation (some good results, some bad) main result was the fact that the Listing shows traditional pantiles whereas the reality is conrete replicas so current owner of past 60 years (89 year old lady) has been a tad naughty and not applied for LBC post the listing which was in 1984. CO says he is UNLIKELY to prosecute her or indeed to insist I as new owner to have to replace (estimate somehwere between £35,000-£45,000 to do). Is 'unlikely' good enough or should I get current owner to apply for retroactive LBC before exchange or alternatively ask CO to confirm in writing? - I am worried that should CO leave then the next bloke in the job might not be so forthcoming!!!

When I have the strength I will ask for advice on insulating these huge attics - about 4 double bedrooms in size - a difficult topic I know as 'cold bridging' will pay a large part and you all love that topic dont you!!!!!

PS. Can you make one LBC application with all your renovation scope of work detailed out on it or do you have to make one for each item?

JJ

 

[Nemesis]

Are you sure this is a new roof?

Listing descrptions have been known to be inaccurate.

It may also be the case that permission was given for the replacement. Are you sure it wasn't?

However - retro is unlikely to be given, I fear, and I suspect the CO won't give a written assurance.

 

[Jailhouse John]

Are you sure this is a new roof?

Listing descrptions have been known to be inaccurate.

It may also be the case that permission was given for the replacement. Are you sure it wasn't?

However - retro is unlikely to be given, I fear, and I suspect the CO won't give a written assurance.

I have asked for a copy of the original listing.

The elderly lady owner has admitted that they re-roofed in the 80's (unfortunately over sarking felt). The website that provides details (forgotton the name) of Listed Buildings states that there have not been any ammendments to the original Listing and it states the following when refering to roofs G.V. II Small country house. 1624, C18, C19, C20. Limestone ashlar, coursed ironstone rubble with limestone dressings, pantile roofs

I will have to walk away if I dont get some sort of guarantee from either the current owner or the CO - £40,000 for new roof tiles is not in the budget!!!!

 

[Pford75]

You can ask that the vendor pays for an indemnity policy against the risk that the CO in future insists on the replacement of the roof....probably runs to a few hundred pounds...your solicitor should be able to advise

 

[Flyfisher]

Your quotation of the listing entry simply states "pantile roofs"; could this description have been applied to concrete replicas?

Also you state that the re-roofing was done in the '80s but the listing was in 1984. I suggest clarification of the precise date is important here because if the work was done prior to listing then I don't believe you can be forced to change it.

 

[Nemesis]

It's a possibility that no indemnity will be available as this is, if proven, a criminal act - it's complicated but...

Images of England - http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk

If it's not there (it should be) I can probably get it for you tomorrow. No, there have been few amendments to original listings, some date back over fifty years. In fact our listing system is a bit of a shambles, but don't start me off...

As I said - listing descriptions have been known to be inaccurate. Did she say that it was re-roofed after being listed? Are these concrete pantiles?

Bear in mind that the listed building consent regime changed somewhat after the 1990 Act. Prior to that it was a little different.

I do know a building which was re-roofed in concrete - as a 'temporary' measure as the cash wasn't available at the time (a SAVE rescue from demolition) and it saved the building, although it's now in the care of the CCT and being re-roofed finally in the appropriate Westmorland slate.

I doubt anyone will take enforcement action without real proof that an offence was committed! Pity though that it was done, it' s probable that the tiles could have been re-used.

Do you really want a house with a concrete roof, and how long will its life expectancy be? Also - have these placed any stresses on the roof structure which could cause problems?

 

[Pford75]

Nemesis - You know how I hate to disagree.....but

An indemnity can be purchased against anything....it won't prevent action being taken by the CO and it couldn't prevent possible imprisonment for works without consent (unlikely to occur anyway)....but you can insure against the cost of re-roffing (absolutely nothing to do with this being the result of a possible criminal act).

My father is a solicitor and we arranged a similar indemnity on a property we nearly purchased before this one, for the removal of an external staircase without consent.

 

[Nemesis]

We've had many a discussion on this one.

It may be available from some insurers who don't always appreciate the subtleties of plot but it is a criminal act, although the subsequent purchaser can't be prosecuted for committing the original offence (the builder too is liable). However, there is a legal liability on subsequent owners and they can have enforcement action taken.

The CO has been informed and it's a very high risk for any insurer...

 

[ljn]

Indemnety insurance policies have saved me more than once against losing a purchase when tricky issues arise with leases. For my current home, I haad two. One for absente freeholder and the other for right of access.

Although I don't have personal experience issues with listed building consent + indemnety, there may be a problem: If carying out unauthorised work to a listed building is a criminal offence, then it could be difficult to find an insurer who could insure against the punishment for a criminal offence.

I could be completley wrong and would deffinitly ask your solicitor.

And post the answer here, please. I am buyind a grade 2 listed terrace house with some dodgy render on the top of the Georgian brick facade...

 

[Pford75]

And post the answer here, please. I am buyind a grade 2 listed terrace house with some dodgy render on the top of the Georgian brick facade...

Brit insurance may offer you an indemnity. The important point to note is that you are not insuring against the criminal act.....you are insuring against the forced re-roofing/re-rendering etc. of the property. As I said, we've arranged a policy in similar circumstances when we realised that a vendor had removed an external staricase without LBC...and the CO was aware.

I appreciate the point about it being high risk...but this is really just an underwriting factor. There's a pretty high risk of rain in May, but our village fete always insures against bad weather

 

[Jailhouse John]

I will pursue the indemnity possibility with my solicitor - thanks.

The CO confirmed that the current pantiles are concrete copies to the proper clay ones but they are all appear to be in very good fettle.

The website mentioned by nemesis is the one I quoted from which refers to 'pantile roofs' only in the descrition. It says that the listing date was 1984 and that there have been no amendments since then, all I know is that the re-roofing was done in the 80's according to the vendor so the time line is important I realise.

I am hoping that the actual Listing from the Council will provide additional detail as to the roofs.

You should realise that the property was in the same ownership from when it was built in 1624 until purchased by the current owners in the 1980's after they had rented it for some 30 years. I do know that they put the new roof on AFTER they bought it so when I see the deeds I will have the time line established as to who owned the property when the Listing was established.

 

[skier-hughes]

I appreciate the point about it being high risk...but this is really just an underwriting factor. There's a pretty high risk of rain in May, but our village fete always insures against bad weather

You'd have thought by now the insurers would be fed up of paying out

 

[Flyfisher]

The deed in question might be a criminal act, but it wasn't perpetrated by the prospective owner so that would seem an unlikely get-out clause for the insurance co. Arson is a criminal offence but insurance companies still pay out to the affected property owner (unless THEY were the arsonist, of course!).

Insurance-wise, isn't this just another risk equation? They just have to weigh up the probability of a successful prosecution against the pay-out that would be required. OK, it's a bit specialised so just go to an insurance co (or broker) that deals with such things. Like all insurance deals, make sure you make a full disclosure of all material facts (that you are aware of) and read the exclusion clauses carefully.

But if the vendor can provide written proof that the roofing work was carried out before the listing date then I think the whole issue goes away.

 

[Nemesis]

The council will have no more details, that's the listing description. There may be notes from the listing inspector buried in the vaults at the National Monument Record but I think it may say little more.

It doesn't say clay... honestly, early listings were pretty much drive by.

It could well be that the roof was done early in the eighties and prior to the listing.

I'm rusty on the consent regime before the 1990 Act, will have to see what I can find, but it wasn't as it is now.

I think you have little need to worry in reality, unless you wish to ruin the place in which case be afraid...

It may be in Pevsner. Worth checking.

As far as the indemnity goes - I have checked this out in the past and still feel it's iffy. But it would be interesting to know of anyone who has had one pay out.

 

[Jailhouse John]

The council will have no more details, that's the listing description. There may be notes from the listing inspector buried in the vaults at the National Monument Record but I think it may say little more.

It doesn't say clay... honestly, early listings were pretty much drive by.

It could well be that the roof was done early in the eighties and prior to the listing.

I'm rusty on the consent regime before the 1990 Act, will have to see what I can find, but it wasn't as it is now.

I think you have little need to worry in reality, unless you wish to ruin the place in which case be afraid...

As far as the indemnity goes - I have checked this out in the past and still feel it's iffy. But it would be interesting to know of anyone who has had one pay out.

Thanks to all -

I have lived in and renovated a Grade 2 in the Lune Valley for the past 11 years so I fully understand most of the do's and dont's. I am just a bit scared of falling foul of the CO which is why I am doing the research before I exchange as £600,000+ is big bucks to get wrong.

It is in Pevsner btw

 

[Nemesis]

Ask for a forty grand reduction and have it re-roofed ...

Without proof that the place was done after the listing, then I can't see that any action can be taken. Pantiles can be clay or concrete.

But do have the roof carefully checked - these things have a short life I think, and can be heavy.

 

[Jailhouse John]

Ask for a forty grand reduction and have it re-roofed ...

Without proof that the place was done after the listing, then I can't see that any action can be taken. Pantiles can be clay or concrete.

But do have the roof carefully checked - these things have a short life I think, and can be heavy.

That had crossed my mind but I suspect that I have exhausted the negotiation process with the son. My specialist surveyor has just finished his survey and I met him on site as well - he is content that the roof finish and structure is sound - the rafters are VERY substantial and in good nick being totally exposed into the 'garret' (or attics as I know them) and available for close inspection.

 

[Nemesis]

Of course, if you can prove a criminal act has been committed it could concentrate minds wonderfully...

 

[Flyfisher]

As far as the indemnity goes - I have checked this out in the past and still feel it's iffy. But it would be interesting to know of anyone who has had one pay out.

. . . and also interesting to know if any such prosecutions have actually been brought after 25 years or more.

 

[Nemesis]

I don't think so - as I said, the LBC regime as it is now only dates to 1990.

There have been prosecutions/enforcements of course, but in clear cut cases.