worth the risk or avoid

G

galway_blow_in

Registered User
Messages
1,992
say a surveyor discovered the following breach ( number 3 )

Comments of Interest.

1. The house has a Timber frame structure.
2. The heating system is a zoned underfloor heating system.
3. The upper floor ceilings are only 2350mm high with a building regulation minimum of 2400mm.
4. The windows on the upper floor meet regulations for escape in the event of a fire.
5. There are no passive wall vents in most habitable rooms which is contrary to the Part F of the Building Regulations.

would that put you off buying ?
 
How old is the house?

And what do you plan to do with it? Renovate / rent out / live in?
 
#3 - could you raise the ceiling 50mm that is required too meet the spec ? If so how much will this cost and is that factored into the price ?

#5 - handy enough with a timber frame house
 
Thirsty said:
How old is the house?

And what do you plan to do with it? Renovate / rent out / live in?
Click to expand...

its a close relative of mine

plan is to live in the house , purchase will be in cash , concern raised by solicitor is whether if property were put on the market in years to come , a bank could refuse to approve mortgage due to breach ?

the breach makes no difference in practical terms , its two inches in eight foot
 
Year of construction is important, compliance with regs needs to be measured against what was in force at the time, but the 1950 regs included the 8ft requirement:

The height of every room in a house shall, if the room is immediately below the roof, be not less than 8 feet throughout two-thirds of the area of the floor and not less than 6 feet throughout the remainder of the area of the floor. If the room is not immediately below the roof the height of the room throughout the area of the floor shall not be less than 8 feet.
Click to expand...

The wording of the heading suggests the surveyor just found these factors interesting, rather than them being a breach. Nothing wrong with a timber frame for example.
 
Last edited:
house was built in 2000 , EA phoned my relative earlier today and claimed that the floor to ceiling was measured at builders finish stage and that the junckers floors fitted afterwards may have made the difference , they claimed that an architect signed off on the build in 2000 and that everything was above board ?
 
this was the reply of the vendor


" the architect who designed and managed the build of the property. He said the 2.4m height is at building finish so would not take in to account the floor finish (or the skim on the ceiling over the plasterboard).

The timber frame was constructed to a 2.4m ceiling height(at the first floor level) in line with Building Regs at that time.

It is a solid oak floorboard throughout the house.
There is also a ply sub floor as a result of it being UFH.

Hopefully this clarification answers the query. "
 
What about asking Soltr to request the Cert of Compliance? & if it is signed off properly, ask surveyor for their opinion if this 50mm is a big deal.

My instinct says not really, but I understand concern. Must measure my ceiling height for the craic!
 
Thirsty said:
What about asking Soltr to request the Cert of Compliance? & if it is signed off properly, ask surveyor for their opinion if this 50mm is a big deal.

My instinct says not really, but I understand concern. Must measure my ceiling height for the craic!
Click to expand...

one could imagine the surveyor and the solicitor saying " it a big deal " purely from the POV of covering their own posterior ?
 
Its not my money so easy for me to say; but I think if I had a Cert of Compliance & all else looked good, I wouldn't stress too much about it.

In any event I'd still have chat w. surveyor.
 
Thirsty said:
Its not my money so easy for me to say; but I think if I had a Cert of Compliance & all else looked good, I wouldn't stress too much about it.

In any event I'd still have chat w. surveyor.
Click to expand...

the surveyor is unhappy with that reply , now he may of course be going by the book and i respect that but i still dont know whether a mortgage underwriter would approve or not ?
 
Open to correction here, but I don't believe mortgage providers do detailed survey of property. Valuation survey would not include measuring ceiling heights? Any ones I've seen did not have that level of detail.

Loan provider would rely on the documentation, e.g. planning permission, cert of compliance and the like.

Just for curiosity sake do the building regs say 2400 at builders finish? Or does it say 2450 to allow for final floor finish?
 
Thirsty said:
Open to correction here, but I don't believe mortgage providers do detailed survey of property. Valuation survey would not include measuring ceiling heights? Any ones I've seen did not have that level of detail.

Loan provider would rely on the documentation, e.g. planning permission, cert of compliance and the like.

Just for curiosity sake do the building regs say 2400 at builders finish? Or does it say 2450 to allow for final floor finish?
Click to expand...

2400 at builders finish
 
With cert of compliance, I'd be ok with that.

Caveat - personal, not professional, experience!
 
Thirsty said:
With cert of compliance, I'd be ok with that.

Caveat - personal, not professional, experience!
Click to expand...

i was sort of thinking - hoping that a cert of compliance from the time of construction would be sufficient for any lender down the line ?
 
Just for the craic I measured my own floor to ceiling height and its 2405 to finished floor.

So I would think, from what you say, the builders finish should have been >2400 to allow for floor finishes.
 
galway_blow_in said:
2400 at builders finish
Click to expand...

Floor is generally regarded as the finished floor, builder's finish suggests sub-floor, but as others have said once they see a cert of compliance, a bank won't look at that level of detail.

galway_blow_in said:
He said the 2.4m height is at building finish so would not take in to account the floor finish (or the skim on the ceiling over the plasterboard).
Click to expand...

Not accounting for skim is nonsense, I'd be tempted to request the architect put that it writing on headed note paper and see how they react. I would be surprised that any architect would suggest that a skim-coat (2-3mm) and flooring would reasonably exceed 50mm. Top quality solid timber flooring rarely exceeds 22mm, most underlays are only a few mm thick, the thicker fibreboard options top out around 12mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top