Certificate of compliance for pre-1982 building

MDillonBowers

Hi,

Looking for some advice, I inheirated my Dad's house, so I sold my own house (at a shortfall of @40k) and moved into my Dad's house. The plan was to move the shortfall across to my Dad's house, so the bank would have some security for the remainder of the loan (let's call it the new house for now). The bank agreed to this, (and why wouldn't they, the valuation came in @180k).

However, their solicitor is asking my solicitor for the world and its mother in terms of documentation! Along with 250 questions, they also want a certificate of compliance for the house. I'm refusing on several grounds:
1. On their website (last year, I can't find it today!), it stated that only new builds or houses where the new owner would be putting extensions on would require a certificate of compliance.
2. Any house I've bought before (again, no new builds or extensions) have required a certificate of compliance, just surveyors reports (that includes the house we just sold)
3. The new house was built @1982 and built by the local County Council, so wouldn't have had planning permission as it wouldn't have been required at the time (my understanding is that at that time, if the County Council built it, it was internal to them, so no planning permission issued)

I'm getting my solicitor to write a letter with the same points to their solicitor as the bank are accusing me of dragging my heels with progressing the switch over (as it stands, they have no security over the shortfall)

So two questions: 1. should I get a cert and be done with it? (even if it does cost over €400) and 2. are they right in what they are asking for? What if the architect says the building doesn't comply with the building regulations from 1982? What happens then?

Apologises for the long explanation.

Marcusm

MDillonBowers wrote: »

Hi,

Looking for some advice, I inheirated my Dad's house, so I sold my own house (at a shortfall of @40k) and moved into my Dad's house. The plan was to move the shortfall across to my Dad's house, so the bank would have some security for the remainder of the loan (let's call it the new house for now). The bank agreed to this, (and why wouldn't they, the valuation came in @180k).

However, their solicitor is asking my solicitor for the world and its mother in terms of documentation! Along with 250 questions, they also want a certificate of compliance for the house. I'm refusing on several grounds:
1. On their website (last year, I can't find it today!), it stated that only new builds or houses where the new owner would be putting extensions on would require a certificate of compliance.
2. Any house I've bought before (again, no new builds or extensions) have required a certificate of compliance, just surveyors reports (that includes the house we just sold)
3. The new house was built @1982 and built by the local County Council, so wouldn't have had planning permission as it wouldn't have been required at the time (my understanding is that at that time, if the County Council built it, it was internal to them, so no planning permission issued)

I'm getting my solicitor to write a letter with the same points to their solicitor as the bank are accusing me of dragging my heels with progressing the switch over (as it stands, they have no security over the shortfall)

So two questions: 1. should I get a cert and be done with it? (even if it does cost over €400) and 2. are they right in what they are asking for? What if the architect says the building doesn't comply with the building regulations from 1982? What happens then?

Apologises for the long explanation.

Has your house sale completed and has the purchaser's funds been used to discharge the mortgage leaving the 40k rump?

As part of that process, do you know if your solicitor to the bank agreeing to register a charge/mortgage against the inherited house? Or was it a personal undertaking that you would do it?

I the solicitor gave an undertaking then these are issues which (s)he should have addressed at an earlier stage. If you are simply following through on a personal undertaking then I would tell them to take the security as they find it and to p*ss off in looking to perfect it.

I say this as a former banker, if the bank did not investigate the security before the agreed to rely on it then they should take it as they find it unless you are looking for more money or facilities from them.

Not legal advice, merely practical advice.

Gumbo

As it pre dates the building regulations, you may need to produce a bye law certificate for it (if available).

MDillonBowers

Marcusm wrote: »

Has your house sale completed and has the purchaser's funds been used to discharge the mortgage leaving the 40k rump?

As part of that process, do you know if your solicitor to the bank agreeing to register a charge/mortgage against the inherited house? Or was it a personal undertaking that you would do it?

I the solicitor gave an undertaking then these are issues which (s)he should have addressed at an earlier stage. If you are simply following through on a personal undertaking then I would tell them to take the security as they find it and to p*ss off in looking to perfect it.

I say this as a former banker, if the bank did not investigate the security before the agreed to rely on it then they should take it as they find it unless you are looking for more money or facilities from them.

Not legal advice, merely practical advice.

Yes, sale completed over a year ago, I lodged a 10 page complaint over the whole process, which went from breach of data confidentiality to having to apply through the arrears process 5 times and adding / changing the shortfall mortgage amounts up to 4 months after the sale had completed amongst other things. The proposal to move the shortfall across to the UK inherited property was my idea that I put to them, and they accepted that - the agreement states that as long as the value of the property is 160k plus, nothing about certs of compliance, etc., (even though the shortfall is only 40k!)
Not looking for anything else from them, just want to get it resolved and paid off. They used to have on their website that the cert was only required on new builds or if you were adding an extension after you bought it, I argued that in my complaint but they didn't answer it as it was only one paragraph buried in 10 pages!

Bank have said we need to get past this issue and get deeds resolved, but I'm standing firm that I wont pay out over €400 for the cert when it's not required, just wondering if they have any hold over making me get it, also, they won't make me sell it once they have their names on the deeds, will they? (I was always suspect why they wanted the valuation to be 160k plus)

Thanks for the previous advice.

busylady

Presumably the bank's solicitor is ensuring that there is a good marketable title to the property.

" it stated that only new builds or houses where the new owner would be putting extensions on would require a certificate of compliance."

A solicitor would be obliged to ensure that a certificate of compliance with planning permission forms part of the title deeds and this would be a standard requirement for all mortgage/sale transactions - they are not only required for new builds or extensions. However in your case if the house was built by the local authority, back in 1982 no planning would have been required and hence no certificate should be required. The solicitor may seek confirmation that the house was exempt from the need for planning permission and this would be by way of letter from the local authority.