Compliance With Regulations

aroch10

Hi... would appreciate any help with this

My family are trying to sell a house. We had a sale agreed and the buyer got an engineers report done. The report conveyed that the head height of the stairs does not comply with regulations and because of this the engineers could not "sign off" on the report and the sale fell through! My question is... because of this... are we going to have problems selling the house?

Thanks in advance

4Sticks

During the boom houses with non compliance issues were routinely sold and sellers could simply "declare" that no Certificate of Compliance with Building Regulations would be forthcoming.
The banks could hardly wait to shovel credit around liberally and did not let little things like building regulations hold things up.
But this is now - you may well continue to have problems unless you fix the problem or await a cash buyer.

ryan101

aroch10 wrote: »

Hi... would appreciate any help with this

My family are trying to sell a house. We had a sale agreed and the buyer got an engineers report done. The report conveyed that the head height of the stairs does not comply with regulations and because of this the engineers could not "sign off" on the report and the sale fell through! My question is... because of this... are we going to have problems selling the house?

Thanks in advance

"The house is substantially in compliance with the building regulations" was the lovely Irish term that used to be used in the past.

Sort the problem with the head height on the stairs, you don't want someone's injury on your hands.

aroch10

Thank you for your reply 4Sticks. I was afraid of that answer I guess this is something the new regs may help with in the future.

So because of the banks mistakes in the past... they are now refusing to give a mortgages in the present... EXCELLENT >:(

aroch10

ryan101 wrote: »

"The house is substantially in compliance with the building regulations" was the lovely Irish term that used to be used in the past.

Sort the problem with the head height on the stairs, you don't want someone's injury on your hands.

Apparently... To sort the head height we would have to go out through the roof for the sake of approx. 500mm due to the type of construction if that makes sense.

ryan101

aroch10 wrote: »

Apparently... To sort the head height we would have to go out through the roof for the sake of approx. 500mm due to the type of construction if that makes sense.

the roof or the ceiling ? usually there is a box room or small bedroom above.

aroch10

ryan101 wrote: »

the roof or the ceiling ?

Through the roof! It is a storey and a half or dormer type of construction if that makes sense.

(BTW thank you for your help)

sydthebeat

500mm?

That's a huge difference to be off the building regulations ie it's actually 25% of the requirement.

miss no stars

I'm guessing the issue is that it's a pitched roof and the stairs finish where there's not enough headroom legally? Without knowing the layout and dimensions, maybe it would be worth looking into putting a turn in the stairs? I'm curious though, is there no certificate of compliance?

aroch10

sydthebeat wrote: »

500mm?

That's a huge difference to be off the building regulations ie it's actually 25% of the requirement.

I understand what your implying. I am after double checking and not just going by the report. The current head height is 1670mm from the pitch line of the stairs. Am i correct in saying that 2000mm is required?... leaving it short 330mm?

aroch10

miss no stars wrote: »

I'm guessing the issue is that it's a pitched roof and the stairs finish where there's not enough headroom legally? Without knowing the layout and dimensions, maybe it would be worth looking into putting a turn in the stairs? I'm curious though, is there no certificate of compliance?

Yes... the pitch is the problem not allowing enough headroom legally. There is already a turn in the stairs as it is. The current owner has no certificate of compliance in her files. Could I go to the developer to get a copy or would that be possible?

Penn

Is it a stairway into a converted attic? If so, when was it built and was there a certificate of compliance for the works?

mickdw

If the roof is the issue, you must move the stairs. Every bit of that 2m is needed in my opinion so you must be really ducking on those stairs as it is.
I've seen a few houses with 1.9m clearance and a normal height person could hit their head so what you have is dangerous.

aroch10

Penn wrote: »

Is it a stairway into a converted attic? If so, when was it built and was there a certificate of compliance for the works?

Hi Penn. Nope, it wasn't a conversion. It is the only set of stairs in a domestic one and a half storey constructed house. It was built in 2000/2001. It is in an estate with other house of the same design and construction also selling. Is it the certificate of compliance that is what really is required to get us out of this situation?

aroch10

mickdw wrote: »

If the roof is the issue, you must move the stairs. Every bit of that 2m is needed in my opinion so you must be really ducking on those stairs as it is.
I've seen a few houses with 1.9m clearance and a normal height person could hit their head so what you have is dangerous.

Hi mickdw. That measurement is at the very smallest point of the head height.. i.e.. the corner point at the turning of the stairs, to the beginning of the ceiling pitch. I hope that makes sense and i am explaining it ok! A picture could help in this situation. Could the measurement be read from the middle of the stairs?

miss no stars

aroch10 wrote: »

I understand what your implying. I am after double checking and not just going by the report. The current head height is 1670mm from the pitch line of the stairs. Am i correct in saying that 2000mm is required?... leaving it short 330mm?

Part K:

"Headroom over the whole width of any
stairs, measured as shown in Diagram 2, should
generally be not less than 2 m. In the conversion of a
loft where space is limited, headroom measured at
the centre of the stairs should be not less than 1.9 m
but may reduce to not less than 1.8 m at the side of
the stairs if there is a minor projection."

aroch10 wrote: »

Yes... the pitch is the problem not allowing enough headroom legally. There is already a turn in the stairs as it is. The current owner has no certificate of compliance in her files. Could I go to the developer to get a copy or would that be possible?

Is the current owner the person who got the work done? If so, she should go back to the engineer and ask them to issue the certificate of compliance.

If they won't issue it, then you're into legal process because they shouldn't have allowed work to proceed that was not in compliance...

In terms of making it compliant, though, if the roof is a standard 40 degree pitch or thereabouts, you basically need to move the last tread further in by about 600mm to get an extra 500mm headroom. You may be able to look at getting a new staircase that's maybe 300mm wider (provided there's space for it), taking care of half the requirement (the first tread of the turn will be 300mm further into the roof space and have about 250mm more headroom over)... If you got stairs where the treads had 2cm more going in them that would take care of the rest. Obviously that depends on there being enough space on the landing to move the highest step 600mm further towards the highest point...

miss no stars

aroch10 wrote: »

Hi mickdw. That measurement is at the very smallest point of the head height.. i.e.. the corner point at the turning of the stairs, to the beginning of the ceiling pitch. I hope that makes sense and i am explaining it ok! A picture could help in this situation. Could the measurement be read from the middle of the stairs?

Is this the only place where it's not compliant? Is there enough headroom at the top of the stairs?

aroch10

miss no stars wrote: »

Part K:

"Headroom over the whole width of any
stairs, measured as shown in Diagram 2, should
generally be not less than 2 m. In the conversion of a
loft where space is limited, headroom measured at
the centre of the stairs should be not less than 1.9 m
but may reduce to not less than 1.8 m at the side of
the stairs if there is a minor projection."



Is the current owner the person who got the work done? If so, she should go back to the engineer and ask them to issue the certificate of compliance.

If they won't issue it, then you're into legal process because they shouldn't have allowed work to proceed that was not in compliance...

In terms of making it compliant, though, if the roof is a standard 40 degree pitch or thereabouts, you basically need to move the last tread further in by about 600mm to get an extra 500mm headroom. You may be able to look at getting a new staircase that's maybe 300mm wider (provided there's space for it), taking care of half the requirement (the first tread of the turn will be 300mm further into the roof space and have about 250mm more headroom over)... If you got stairs where the treads had 2cm more going in them that would take care of the rest. Obviously that depends on there being enough space on the landing to move the highest step 600mm further towards the highest point...

This is absolutely great information and i appreciate your help and time

To answer your other question... yes, there is enough headroom at the top of the stairs. It is quite a steep pitched roof.

Would the developer be able to give me a copy of the cert of compliance if i approached him after this length of time? Does he have any duty to?

Thanks again

miss no stars

aroch10 wrote: »

This is absolutely great information and i appreciate your help and time

To answer your other question... yes, there is enough headroom at the top of the stairs. It is quite a steep pitched roof.

Would the developer be able to give me a copy of the cert of compliance if i approached him after this length of time? Does he have any duty to?

Thanks again

Not know the specifics I can't say one way or another... The certificate of compliance is a title document, the house shouldn't have been purchased without it and you may have an issue with the solicitor who allowed it to be purchased with a title document missing.

If the house was built in accordance with the building regulations there should be no cause for withholding a title document, it should just be a case of issuing it. If it wasn't built in accordance with the regulations (doesn't sound like it was), then a certificate of compliance can't be issued because it's not in compliance.

If the house was bought from new the first thing I would do is get on to the developer (if he still exists). Just say "Selling the house, it came up during conveyancing that there should be a certificate of compliance but we never got one. Just wondering if it's on file anywhere or if you could get the original architect/engineer to issue one to us so the sale can go through?". If it was built in compliance, the cert should be issued. Who knows, it might be on file somewhere and was never sent out by mistake?

If that brings no joy (because it doesn't sound compliant), the next thing I would do is sit down with an architect for a few minutes and bash out the easiest way to make it compliant.

What I'm picturing is a wall along the side of the stairs with the roof coming off the top of it. The stairs then turn and go up with the pitch of the roof. Where the stairs start, is there plenty of room beside them or is it a narrow enough corridor beside them? I'm not an architect, I normally just do the numbers to make things stand so I'm a little out of my arena here (hence I recommend sitting down with an architect!) but the reason I ask is that if you moved the entire staircase out from the wall by about 300mm, you would get an extra 275mm of headroom at the turn. Then in the gap you could put something like this in:



But obviously that will only work if there's enough space beside the staircase (and beyond it at the top) to move it out a bit. I mean you can always try chance it and see if another buyer gets a surveyor who doesn't notice the headroom issue, but tbh, I'm not that tall at 1.67m with no shoes on so I would immediately notice that stairs aren't compliant if I was having to watch my head!

Mackcon

Your best and cheapest option is to move the stairs or remake , other options is to put in a dormer window over the stairs ( requires planning) or to sell as bungalow with attic conversion ( may affect price ) a cert of compliance will only be granted if one of the above is implemented and you'll be wasting your time chasing the builder , especially if there's an estate with similar problems , if the issue is only on your property mabey and if the builder is still operating

Mellor

aroch10 wrote: »

So because of the banks mistakes in the past... they are now refusing to give a mortgages in the present... EXCELLENT >:(

It's not built correctly, the bank had nothing to do with that.

aroch10 wrote: »

I understand what your implying. I am after double checking and not just going by the report. The current head height is 1670mm from the pitch line of the stairs. Am i correct in saying that 2000mm is required?... leaving it short 330mm?

Correct

aroch10 wrote: »

Yes... the pitch is the problem not allowing enough headroom legally. There is already a turn in the stairs as it is. The current owner has no certificate of compliance in her files. Could I go to the developer to get a copy or would that be possible?

It's clearly not in compliance, nobody in their right mind will issue a cert for something built 14 years ago that isn't compliant.

Either you find a buyer happy to take the house as is, or you modify the stairs to comply. How big or small a job that is depends on too many factors to convey across a forum. Its ludicrous for people to be quoting numbers and distances to you.

JimsAlterEgo

cash buyers wont need the cert its only only banks issueing mortgages that will

BryanF

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

cash buyers wont need the cert its only only banks issueing mortgages that will

cash biyuer will get the same advise from their professional as the bank will.
are they going to do less due diligence spending their money than a bank is?

JimsAlterEgo

BryanF wrote: »

cash biyuer will get the same advise from their professional as the bank will.
are they going to do less due diligence spending their money than a bank is?

no but they can still buy if they wish? I wouldnt advise it but my point is unless the siuation is rectified the OPS buyers Market is restricted to Cash Buyers willing to take the risk