Newsline

Both are true of these two recent claims. Despite the works in both cases being over ten years old and technically immune from enforcement action, plenty of work was required to resolve the claims and get the necessary certification issued from the local authorities –  which took longer and cost more than you might expect.

Up on the roof

In June 2020, we were contacted by solicitors acting on behalf of a client who was buying a terraced house in Cambridge. Back in 2008, the previous owners had built a single-storey extension. Although planning permission had been granted, no building regulations certificate had been issued once the works were completed. In addition, the planning permission prohibited the use of the extension’s roof as a balcony or roof garden, which the owners had been doing since the structure was completed.

Our underwriting team reviewed the information provided and assessed the practical merits of the case. The age of the works was a positive feature: the roof terrace had been in use for more than ten years, making it immune from enforcement action. What’s more, there had been no complaints from neighbours about the use of the roof space, and no relevant communication with the local authority and no attempts to formally resolve the breach. We were therefore happy to issue cover for a Breach of Planning Conditions and a Lack of Building Regulations policy for £429, with a policy limit of £352,000.

Proof positive

Five years later, and seemingly out of the blue, the local authority visited the property to assess an alleged breach of planning condition relating to the use of the roof terrace. Following the visit, the Planning officer informed our policyholder that she would need to apply for a Certificate of Lawful Use within 28 days – which is when she called our Claims team.

It seemed that it would be a straightforward claim to handle, with our aim being to present evidence of the age of the works to the local authority and obtain a Certificate of Lawful Use. The only potential complication was that our policyholder had installed new railings around the edge of the roof just two months before the planning officer’s visit, and our team were concerned that they could have been the trigger for the claim. But after talking to the planning officer, it became clear that our policyholder’s actions were not responsible for the claim arising, which was instead triggered by a complaint from a neighbour who had recently put their house up for sale.

Our claims team appointed a planning consultant to put together the application for the lawful use certificate. This involved a site visit to assess the roof and extension, and gathering the evidence to prove a timeline of continuous use since 2008, with statutory declarations from our policyholder, the previous owners, and one of the neighbours. Just two months after the application was submitted, the local authority approved the Certificate of Lawful Use, confirming that the roof terrace was immune from any enforcement action. This was a great result for our policyholder. Not only had the claim been dealt with quickly, but the policy covered the full £6,000 costs to formally resolve the issue, made up largely of professional and consultancy fees, clearly demonstrating the value of the £429 policy.

Garage music

Not every claim can be resolved so quickly. In March 2020, we received an enquiry for a four-bedroom property in north London. Searches had revealed that planning permission had been granted in 2005 to convert the garage into ‘habitable accommodation’ including a bedroom, shower room and kitchen. These works had subsequently been carried out, but no building regulations certification had been issued. The seller provided proof that the garage conversion had been in place for 15 years and confirmed that there had been no relevant contact with the local authority since. On this basis, we were happy to issue a Lack of Building Regulations policy covering any future enforcement action for £193, with a policy limit of £540,000.

Fast forward

In November 2022, the policyholder got in touch with our claims team. He had received a letter from the local authority, alleging that the garage conversion had been carried out without building regulations approval and threatening enforcement action. The garage conversion had been brought to their attention by a complaint from a disgruntled neighbour, whose property had been damaged by water from a leaky drain on the policyholder’s property.

The age of the garage conversion meant that the works should be immune to enforcement action, so our first step was to help our policyholder respond to the local authority, outlining how long the works had been in place. A few months later, the planning office confirmed that the garage conversion was immune from enforcement action and could remain - but a retrospective application would need to be submitted to ensure that the works complied with the building regulations standards in place when they were completed.

Our team got to work, instructing a building surveyor to assess the works before pulling together the application. However, the surveyor quickly uncovered a complication: since buying the property, the policyholder had added sound insulation to the ground-floor bedroom to use it as a music room, but the soundproofing had effectively reduced the internal height of the room, which could be an issue for the local authority. He was intent on retaining the soundproofing, which meant it would have to be carefully removed for any work to be done and then put back. But the surveyor’s main concern was that the space hadn’t been properly insulated and wouldn’t meet the standards required for a habitable room. These issues meant that significant work would be necessary to bring the works up to 2005 building regulations.

Press pause

At this point the process slowed. Alterations were required to the floor, walls and roof to meet the standards required for a ‘habitable room’, including installation of new insulation throughout, and raising the roof to ensure the interior met the minimum height requirement. The works were fairly complex, and finding a builder was no simple task. Our policyholder approached eight firms before finding one who agreed to take the job. By the beginning of December 2025, just over three years after the council’s initial letter, the Building Regulations Completion Certificate was finally issued. The total spent on the building works and materials was £44,000, and we paid a further £5,000 in professional fees, altogether proving the value of a policy which cost less than £200.

Expert support 

As these two examples demonstrate, lack of consent claims against our policies can and do arise when works are old enough to fall outside the period for any enforcement action. Some can be sorted out quickly, while others can take months or even years to resolve, requiring expensive remedial works – but both outcomes incur costs. Fortunately for these two property owners, their conveyancers had insured the unauthorised works rather than relying on their age to act as a barrier to any enforcement action.