Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Pre 63 but not Pre 63

  • 02-12-2020 6:13pm
    #1
    Senor
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭


    Hi All,

    I'm looking at purchasing a large Victorian house that is sub-divided into 6 apartments. The subdivision was done in the mid 70's, so falls after the introduction of the planning laws in the 60's. The year and month of subdivision is noted in the deeds for the property.

    All the apartments are self contained (kitchens and bathrooms). In their current configuration, the apartments are below the 2020 requirements for minimum floor space for 1 and 2 beds.

    I have spoken to a Surveyor and he said all that is required is updating the property to current fire regulations. Also, an insurance broker has informed me that they have clients on their books who have sub-divided houses that are not pre-63.

    Does anybody have any experience with this type of setup? If i modernise and update all apartments to current fire regulations, is it good to go given that im reliant on the property having been subdivided since 1974 and passed the enforcement time (7 years for Dublin City Council)?

    Many Thanks in advance!


Comments

  • #2
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,432 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Mod Note.

    This borders on legal advice so thread carefully posting. The property is either pre 63 or not. It can’t be both.
    The property is either in a state of planning compliance or it’s not.

    If you are purchasing, I assume it’s cash as the banks may require certification to release funds.


  • #3
    Senor
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭Senor


    Gumbo wrote: »
    Mod Note.

    This borders on legal advice so thread carefully posting. The property is either pre 63 or not. It can’t be both.
    The property is either in a state of planning compliance or it’s not.

    If you are purchasing, I assume it’s cash as the banks may require certification to release funds.

    Yes, it will be cash.

    It is not a pre 63 - that is not in doubt. But, it has passed the enforcement period by more than 7 years so can be sold with a clear title. Legal advice on this is not requested


  • #4
    Dolbhad
    Registered Users Posts: 782 ✭✭✭Dolbhad


    Senor wrote: »
    Yes, it will be cash.

    It is not a pre 63 - that is not in doubt. But, it has passed the enforcement period by more than 7 years so can be sold with a clear title. Legal advice on this is not requested


    This is a misconception. 7 years passing just means the Council cannot bring enforcement proceedings against you. It doesn’t mean
    you mean you have clear title.

    It still means the house does not comply with planning permission and/or building regulations which would be an issue of you go to sell or mortgage in the property on the future. It will also affect you if you seek to do works to the house which requires you to apply for planning permission to the Council. The council could put conditions in the planning to deal with any current planning defects.

    You should seek legal advice from your solicitor and speak to your engineer. A lot could depend on your plans to the property.


  • #5
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,432 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Senor wrote: »
    Yes, it will be cash.

    It is not a pre 63 - that is not in doubt. But, it has passed the enforcement period by more than 7 years so can be sold with a clear title. Legal advice on this is not requested

    That’s incorrect Information you have been given.


  • #6
    Senor
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭Senor


    Dolbhad wrote: »
    This is a misconception. 7 years passing just means the Council cannot bring enforcement proceedings against you. It doesn’t mean
    you mean you have clear title.

    It still means the house does not comply with planning permission and/or building regulations which would be an issue of you go to sell or mortgage in the property on the future. It will also affect you if you seek to do works to the house which requires you to apply for planning permission to the Council. The council could put conditions in the planning to deal with any current planning defects.

    You should seek legal advice from your solicitor and speak to your engineer. A lot could depend on your plans to the property.

    Thanks for the reply Dolbhad.

    I guess this is the crux of the issue. Its a bit of a grey area and why my question.

    1) I don't intend to sell or mortgage the property as its a long term investment. I would encounter no issues there.

    2) I dont intend to do works to the house that would require planning permission. The internal floor space has already been maximised so there is no need for any additional extensions or external works that require planning

    3) An insurance broker has provided me with a quote for it and they have said they have clients currently on the books in the same situation.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Senor
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭Senor


    Gumbo wrote: »
    That’s incorrect Information you have been given.

    Understood - thanks


  • #8
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,156 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    In general Dublin City Council is not bothered about taking enforcement action where the conversion happened a long time ago.
    The main issue to consider is whether or not the property is a protected structure, whether is has potential to be de-converted back to a family home and whether complying with fire regulations is feasible.
    Some Victorian houses will make good family homes and some won't. Some have gardens, off street parking and are on pleasant tree-lined roads. Others have tiny gardens, no off street parking and are on busy thoroughfares.
    Regulations change from time to time and it may happen in the future that updating to the regulations becomes impossible or prohibitively expensive.
    Current government policy is to eliminate converted flats and have them replaced by purpose built units. Every few years the screw tightens. 30 years ago, there was free refuse collection of any quantity of waste by Dublin Corporation, there was no water charge and no registration, virtually no inspections and very easily met minimum standards.
    Sooner ort later you may have to face a decision to upgrade or de-convert.


  • #9
    Senor
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭Senor


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    In general Dublin City Council is not bothered about taking enforcement action where the conversion happened a long time ago.
    The main issue to consider is whether or not the property is a protected structure, whether is has potential to be de-converted back to a family home and whether complying with fire regulations is feasible.
    Some Victorian houses will make good family homes and some won't. Some have gardens, off street parking and are on pleasant tree-lined roads. Others have tiny gardens, no off street parking and are on busy thoroughfares.
    Regulations change from time to time and it may happen in the future that updating to the regulations becomes impossible or prohibitively expensive.
    Current government policy is to eliminate converted flats and have them replaced by purpose built units. Every few years the screw tightens. 30 years ago, there was free refuse collection of any quantity of waste by Dublin Corporation, there was no water charge and no registration, virtually no inspections and very easily met minimum standards.
    Sooner ort later you may have to face a decision to upgrade or de-convert.

    Thanks for the reply Claw Hammer.

    Its not protected, reversion to a home would not be an issue and i know the fire regulations that need to be adhered to and it can be done within a reasonable cost.

    The issue is really to do with insurance and if an insurance company would withhold a claim in the unlikely event that something did happen, given its not pre 63.


  • #10
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,156 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Senor wrote: »
    Thanks for the reply Claw Hammer.

    Its not protected, reversion to a home would not be an issue and i know the fire regulations that need to be adhered to and it can be done within a reasonable cost.

    The issue is really to do with insurance and if an insurance company would withhold a claim in the unlikely event that something did happen, given its not pre 63.

    The insurance won't refuse a claim on those grounds as it is not material to the risk. They usually inspect before they give insurance and whether the conversion happened before or after 1964 doesn't affect the risk they are taking on. It is unusual to have a Victorian building in Dublin which is not a protected structure. You should check the list of structures personally.


  • #11
    Senor
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭Senor


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    The insurance won't refuse a claim on those grounds as it is not material to the risk. They usually inspect before they give insurance and whether the conversion happened before or after 1964 doesn't affect the risk they are taking on. It is unusual to have a Victorian building in Dublin which is not a protected structure. You should check the list of structures personally.

    Thanks.

    That's my interpretation of what an insurance company would do, but i cant get them to issue or state anything to that affect. Pretty frustrating.

    Yep, i've checked the protected structures and its not on it.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,156 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Senor wrote: »
    Thanks.

    That's my interpretation of what an insurance company would do, but i cant get them to issue or state anything to that affect. Pretty frustrating.

    Yep, i've checked the protected structures and its not on it.

    Send the broker a letter about it and keep a copy. If cover is later refused, sue the broker!


  • #13
    Senor
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭Senor


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    Send the broker a letter about it and keep a copy. If cover is later refused, sue the broker!

    I was half thinking that! :)


  • #14
    Dolbhad
    Registered Users Posts: 782 ✭✭✭Dolbhad


    Senor wrote: »
    Thanks for the reply Dolbhad.

    I guess this is the crux of the issue. Its a bit of a grey area and why my question.

    1) I don't intend to sell or mortgage the property as its a long term investment. I would encounter no issues there.

    2) I dont intend to do works to the house that would require planning permission. The internal floor space has already been maximised so there is no need for any additional extensions or external works that require planning

    3) An insurance broker has provided me with a quote for it and they have said they have clients currently on the books in the same situation.

    If your ago with the legal and engineering side of thinks and it comes down to insurance, I suppose I’d want to clear from the insurance what they will insure. If you every had to make a claiming anything, they would try not pay out but that’s every house. If the cause of a claim is due to any defects with Planning or building regs/bye law approval, are you covered?


  • #15
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,156 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Dolbhad wrote: »
    If your ago with the legal and engineering side of thinks and it comes down to insurance, I suppose I’d want to clear from the insurance what they will insure. If you every had to make a claiming anything, they would try not pay out but that’s every house. If the cause of a claim is due to any defects with Planning or building regs/bye law approval, are you covered?

    The planning breach has to be material to the risk that is covered. Unless the proposer lies about planning there should not be a problem. The risk of a fire or storm is the same whether there is planning permission or not. Ifg the o/p tells the broker and a policy is issued the underwriter can't claim there was non-disclosure of a material risk.


Advertisement