Part M Building Regulation

GillianW1983

We have gone sale agreed but buyer's surveyor noted we removed the downstairs toilet and therefore cannot get a cert of compliance.
The buyers solicitor now has to qualify title and has to send paperwork of some sort to his lender.
Not getting our calls returned from our agent and when we do he is not very clear on what is happening.
Can anyone advise on a time frame for the bank to agree to lend or disagree to lend?
Anyone been through similar?

BryanF

Assuming the house is built post c.2000, removing the Wc means your house isn’t compliant with building regs. What the buyer (solicitor/bank) chooses to do is anyone’s guess - We can’t give you an answer on that. Assuming your builders didn’t completely demolish the waste/water pipes etc, you could say to the buyer that you’d knock say 5-10k of the cost considering that might be what it would take to reinstate the wc/ compliance.

Gumbo

GillianW1983 wrote: »

We have gone sale agreed but buyer's surveyor noted we removed the downstairs toilet and therefore cannot get a cert of compliance.
The buyers solicitor now has to qualify title and has to send paperwork of some sort to his lender.
Not getting our calls returned from our agent and when we do he is not very clear on what is happening.
Can anyone advise on a time frame for the bank to agree to lend or disagree to lend?
Anyone been through similar?

You cannot get a Compliance cert as you have breached the Building Regulations.
This may force the purchaser to pull out as the bank may not release funds.

When you got the works done, did you have any professional advice with regards to removing the Accessible WC.

sydthebeat

ive seen sales fall through because of this.

Mellor

Gumbo wrote: »

You cannot get a Compliance cert as you have breached the Building Regulations.

Depending on when and how the toilet was removed, they may not have breached building regs. I don’t believe there’s an obligation to maintain compliance in your home. In particularly for part M.

Moot point, as the house is being sold, it is non-compliant at this moment in time.

Gumbo

Mellor wrote: »

Depending on when and how the toilet was removed, they may not have breached building regs. I don’t believe there’s an obligation to maintain compliance in your home. In particularly for part M.

Moot point, as the house is being sold, it is non-compliant at this moment in time.

You need to maintain a visitable WC as per Part M in my opinion.

mickdw

Id say it will go ahead.
You will get a cert of compliance noting the part M issue and likely nobody will make an issue of it.

Mellor

Gumbo wrote: »

You need to maintain a visitable WC as per Part M in my opinion.

Is there a legal basis for that?

Gumbo

Mellor wrote: »

Is there a legal basis for that?

Could the same argument be made then for every technical requirement of the building regulations?

Block up all bedroom windows?
Remove the accessible entrance?
Remove the ventilation system?
Remove all insulation?

Mellor

Gumbo wrote: »

Could the same argument be made then for every technical requirement of the building regulations?

Block up all bedroom windows?
Remove the accessible entrance?
Remove the ventilation system?
Remove all insulation?

Some of those are for benefit, health and safety for occupants. All occupants. Can’t think if an argument to justify removing them.

Part M is based accessibility for a potential occupant/visitor. It’s quite easy to think of situations where it’s of no benefit.
Public buildings obviously have a requirement to provide facilities to the public. I’m not sure if private dwellings do. If they did, then it could apply to all dwellings. But the way the law is structured, only applies to construction. I can’t think of a legal basis where somebody would be bound by building regs for minor works or DIY type stuff.

Just to be clear, I’m talking in terms of whether OP has broken the law. Or breaks the law by selling it. Not suggesting everyone should rip them out.

mickdw

Mellor wrote: »

Some of those are for benefit, health and safety for occupants. All occupants. Can’t think if an argument to justify removing them.

Part M is based accessibility for a potential occupant/visitor. It’s quite easy to think of situations where it’s of no benefit.
Public buildings obviously have a requirement to provide facilities to the public. I’m not sure if private dwellings do. If they did, then it could apply to all dwellings. But the way the law is structured, only applies to construction. I can’t think of a legal basis where somebody would be bound by building regs for minor works or DIY type stuff.

Just to be clear, I’m talking in terms of whether OP has broken the law. Or breaks the law by selling it. Not suggesting everyone should rip them out.

I dont see how you differentiate between this reg and other aspects of the regs.
It should be there if required at time of construction.
I still think the sale will progress though.

muffler

Mellor wrote: »

I don’t believe there’s an obligation to maintain compliance in your home. In particularly for part M.

Have to say I'm surprised at that comment. If it was a legal requirement to install it then the owner is legally obliged to maintain it.

RandRuns

I would think the sale will almost certainly fall through - the bank will not realease funds if the house isn't compliant, and your house isn't compliant.
As I see it, you have two choices - take a chance on the bank ignoring the non-compliance (extremely unlikely in my opinion), or, if it's just a case that the WC was removed and the pipes capped, get the buyer to hold off a few days and reinstate it.

mickdw

RandRuns wrote: »

I would think the sale will almost certainly fall through - the bank will not realease funds if the house isn't compliant, and your house isn't compliant.
As I see it, you have two choices - take a chance on the bank ignoring the non-compliance (extremely unlikely in my opinion), or, if it's just a case that the WC was removed and the pipes capped, get the buyer to hold off a few days and reinstate it.

Some of the certs ive seen accepted would put the hair standing on your head.
Depending on how its written, it would very likely go through.
Some people tend to do a very simple note such as 'non compliance relating to Part M noted'

Personally, i make it very clear stating something like - The following items where non compliance was noted:
Part M - accessible toilet not present on ground floor. Floor layout altered with original toilet removed.

Ive done certs where there was a full page of non compliance across planning and building regs including qualifications due to it being a visual inspection and a bank still funded it.

RandRuns

mickdw wrote: »

Some of the certs ive seen accepted would put the hair standing on your head.
Depending on how its written, it would very likely go through.
Some people tend to do a very simple note such as 'non compliance relating to Part M noted'

Personally, i make it very clear stating something like - The following items where non compliance was noted:
Part M - accessible toilet not present on ground floor. Floor layout altered with original toilet removed.

Ive done certs where there was a full page of non compliance across planning and building regs including qualifications due to it being a visual inspection and a bank still funded it.

Jesus, I've never come across that since the celtic tiger years I have to say - I have seen banks turn down funding for silly things, though nothing would surprise me any more!

Mellor

muffler wrote: »

Have to say I'm surprised at that comment. If it was a legal requirement to install it then the owner is legally obliged to maintain it.

I could be wrong, as it's a while since I read the phrasing of the actual law.
The scope of law is very narrow, legally. Remember, the TGDs are not laws.

That is why compliance statements are the like are so important. Compliance statements, and other official documents give all interested bodies legal recourse for recovery of losses. These are civil matters, not a criminal ones.

Obviously it's not in keeping with the intent of the building regs. But I think the department would have a very hard time prosecuting the OP for removing a toilet while he was the owner/occupant.

sydthebeat

i believe building regulation compliance needs to be maintained.

on this particular regulation, the actual law states:

Adequate provision shall be made for people to access and
use a building, its facilities and its environs.

if an accessible toilet is removed, or its "accessibility" removed, then the building is de facto non compliant in my opinion, and I believe actionable by the BCO

to "use" a building is an ongoing process... not just "on completion"

its not like, say, a person changing a heat pump for an oil boiler thus making the dwelling non compliant with Part L.... where the owner occupant is the main "injured party" in such a case.
Removal of a Part M toilet means that other people than the owner are prospectively the "injured party", and thus are protected under the legislation.

obviously all this is my opinion

RandRuns

sydthebeat wrote: »

i believe building regulation compliance needs to be maintained.

on this particular regulation, the actual law states:


if an accessible toilet is removed, or its "accessibility" removed, then the building is de facto non compliant in my opinion, and I believe actionable by the BCO

to "use" a building is an ongoing process... not just "on completion"

its not like, say, a person changing a heat pump for an oil boiler thus making the dwelling non compliant with Part L.... where the owner occupant is the main "injured party" in such a case.
Removal of a Part M toilet means that other people than the owner are prospectively the "injured party", and thus are protected under the legislation.

obviously all this is my opinion

This is my understanding as well. Part M is effectively covering the future use of the dwelling, not just current use.

Mellor

sydthebeat wrote: »

on this particular regulation, the actual law states:

Adequate provision shall be made for people to access and use a building, its facilities and its environs.

Now we’re getting somewhere.

Adequate provision for the users.

So if a set of facilities other than those in TGD was deemed adequate, for the users. Then it would satisfy part M. Correct?

if an accessible toilet is removed, or its "accessibility" removed, then the building is de facto non compliant in my opinion, and I believe actionable by the BCO

People have mention in thread a few times when they have written or sighted reports that included part M exclusions.
Has anyone heard of an occupier being prosecuted or fined for deviating from TGD part M?

to "use" a building is an ongoing process... not just "on completion"

Yes. I’d agree with that.
However TGD are written for generic use.
We are now looking at specific use. Which is different.

Hypothetically, say a little person bought a house, and modified sanitary fixtures, handles, switches etc to suit their stature. Would you deem that non-compliant with part M? I wouldn’t. As it’s a specific accessible design.

Removal of a Part M toilet means that other people than the owner are prospectively the "injured party", and thus are protected under the legislation.

obviously all this is my opinion

Which people, other that the occupant, are an injured party?
Bare in mind it’s a private dwelling, so people other than the occupant, don’t have any right or reason to be on the property.
Now that it’s being sold, it’s a different story obviously. On the open market it’s non-compliant.

And I fully respect you opinion Syd. I understand exactly where you are coming from. I’d never advice somebody in a professional capacity to deviate from TGDs without a very solid reasoning.
I’m speaking purely from a technical legal standpoint. I think it would very hard to prosecute the OP. Or more to the point, easy to defend that position with an “expert witness”.

For the record I’m still very much involved in accessible design, it’s something I take very seriously. I think part m is lacking in a few areas, but in general it’s pretty good.

muffler

I would never envisage a situation whereby anyone would be prosecuted for non compliance with Part M. However the statutory power to so is there.

Take the simple things like the access ramp and wheelchair accessible wc at ground floor level. There will be a lot of people (developers and self builders) who will provide these items at building stage but in 50 years time will be thinking why did they ever bother as no one ever made use of the facilities.

But I suppose thats not the point. They are required whether used or not.

Gumbo

Mellor wrote: »

So if a set of facilities other than those in TGD was deemed adequate, for the users. Then it would satisfy part M. Correct?

Agreed, TGDM is Prima Facia Compliance. There are other routes to demonstrate Compliance such as BS8300, NDA Building For everyone etc

Mellor wrote: »

Hypothetically, say a little person bought a house, and modified sanitary fixtures, handles, switches etc to suit their stature. Would you deem that non-compliant with part M? I wouldn’t. As it’s a specific accessible design.

I think this then goes beyond the remit of Pat M and is specific purpose built for the disabled nature of the occupant. Ive seen some with low level counter tops and heists installed in the ceiling and also a lift, all within a single family dwelling.

Mellor wrote: »

Which people, other that the occupant, are an injured party?

Bare in mind it’s a private dwelling, so people other than the occupant, don’t have any right or reason to be on the property.
Now that it’s being sold, it’s a different story obviously. On the open market it’s non-compliant.

Agreed, I think the bolded part is key here and is in effect what has happened to the OP. Strangely enough, we also got a call in work this week from a seller of a house with this exact problem and needed advise on how to proceed.

Mellor wrote: »

For the record I’m still very much involved in accessible design, it’s something I take very seriously. I think part m is lacking in a few areas, but in general it’s pretty good.

CABE has a nice piece this month on accessible housing in the UK market and how Planners there are want to enforce developers for minimum numbers of dwellings in large developments to be more than the minimum or be capable of being adaptable for future use.