# Certificate for attic conversion



## homeowner (10 Nov 2009)

Not sure if this is the right place for this question.  

We bought a house in 2006 which had an attic conversion.  It is for extra storage space, it does not meet the requirements for being an extra rooom (ceiling is too low for one thing).  There was a document which said it meets building regulations but that has been mislaid - I have no idea why or who mislaid it, I suspect it was our solicitors.  Anyway, how do I go about getting another one.  Who performs this job?  An architect?  I just need someone to sign off that it meets building requirements for use as storage space in the attic or something like that.


----------



## LM26 (10 Nov 2009)

homeowner, yes an Architect will give you this information, once it does comply with the building regs.


----------



## onq (10 Nov 2009)

Compliance here may be a grey area.
The building regulations affected may include Parts A, B, C, D, F, K and L.
I'm not certain where the line is drawn when undertaking attic conversions for storage purposes only.
The increased floor loading suggests you should upgrade the timber bearers to safely transmit the extra loads.
Flooring out means your 300mm insulation will be compressed to the depth of the floor joists.
You can argue the toss that the stored goods represent additional "insulation" but there is no guarantee that these will all be insulators.
Also unless you have wall to wall boxes of paper any additional "insulation" will be hit and miss.
This suggests you should go the whole hog and insulate between and under the roof rafters to the required depth, taking care to preserve the required level of interstitial ventilation and to address any cold bridging at the wall plate.
IN addition, while the attic may not be a habitable room, it is a storage space, like a garage, and a huge amount of flammable materials may end up stored there.
If you have downlighters at first floor level, these will become enclosed by the flooring out regardless and you should consider installing FR30 fire hoods to the lights and automatic shut down transformers which react to heat build up.
If there is a stairs access, as opposed to a Staighre, the definition is blurred still further - whatever about the planning definition, it then becomes a place children will have easy access to.
This in turn needs the stairs design to be addressed to comply with Part K, including establishing the minimum rise and going is installed.
Also if winder steps are used, the minimum width at the narrow end of 75mm should be installed, because not to do so at either end will tend to lead to falls, possibly resulting on concussion or broken bones.
This is not an exaggeration - I know of one person who has suffered a fall in just this way and was injured.
Because of all these issues, I think it is advisable to detail the rest of the house with such an attic space AS IF it were a "full" conversion.
This includes upgrading the Fire Detection and Alarm System, protecting the fire escape route and and/or providing alternative escape via dormer or velux windows properly sized and positioned.
Ceiling Height is an advisory matter, not a mandatory matter.
A Fire Escape Route requires a minimum head height of 2M clear, into which a door frame may intrude a certain amount.
However, the DOE advisory leaflet on attic conversions shows a 1.9M head height over an attic stair access suggesting that even this may not be set in stone, perhaps based on the limited usage and/or the customary use of this space as children's' bedroom accommodation.

So, in summary, a bit of a grey area, but the measures to keep it as safe as possible are known and I would certainly look for them to be installed if I was inspecting.

FWIW

ONQ.

[broken link removed]


----------



## homeowner (11 Nov 2009)

onq said:


> Compliance here may be a grey area.
> The building regulations affected may include Parts A, B, C, D, F, K and L.
> I'm not certain where the line is drawn when undertaking attic conversions for storage purposes only.
> The increased floor loading suggests you should upgrade the timber bearers to safely transmit the extra loads.
> ...



Thanks for the detailed reply.  
I believe 6inch timber beams were added as floor support.
Insulation I dont know about, but I can see from pulling out the drawers installed along the sides that there is yellow insulating foam between all the beams.
There is stairs access but it is narrower than a usual stair case.
The door height is slightly smaller than usual door height. 
The ceiling in the middle is high enough for my 6 ft 3 other half to stand upright but then tapers towards the edges of the room.
There are velux windows and a ladder designed to hook over those for escape.
Does the above sound like its ok?  I know without seeing it, you cant say for sure but last thing I need now is to find out we have to shell out loads of money to "fix" it when we thought it all complied to standards.  
I presume if it was signed off the first time it will be signed off again.


----------



## onq (11 Nov 2009)

Hi Homeowner.

I'd be surprised if the stairs are compliant - the minimum clear width allowed is 800mm if I recall correctly [remember the 3"/75mm minimum tread width].
The joists seem undersized [depends on span and load, but 175mm would be a small span floor joist with 200-225 being the norm].
The yellow insulating foam is a new one - the most commonly found yellow insulation is fireglass, which tends to sag and bunch and usually blocks the 50mm air gap.
Builders sometimes use a foam filler product around windows to seal them but I don't know that its suitable for insulating at roof level [check the product name and see what the agrement certificate says].
I fail to see how the 50mm gap was kept clear using foam between the joists.

Still, as you know, I haven't seen the conversion so this is mere speculation on my part.

Regarding the original certification [even were this limited to visual inspection only] if you can see now from visual inspection that the work is non-compliant, then the original cert may have been issued improperly for the purposes of giving comfort to the purchaser to allow a sale to proceed.

That having been said, I saw lots of attic conversions in friend's houses when I was a teenager and I doubt one was compliant with the then Building Bye-Laws.

Didn't stop people doing them, and you don't hear of a welter of deaths in attics.

The ladder sounds interesting.



ONQ.


----------



## RKQ (11 Nov 2009)

onq said:


> Regarding the original certification [even were this limited to visual inspection only] if you can see now from visual inspection that the work is non-compliant, then the original cert may have been issued improperly for the purposes of giving comfort to the purchaser to allow a sale to proceed. ONQ.


 
Comfort the purchaser? False certification is fraud.
Any house build after july 1992 must have a Certificate of Compliance with Building Control. The Certificates should be with the Deeds of the property. If someone falsely "issue" a Certificate of Compliance then you will have an excellent legal case against them.

If the house was build before 1992 then the attic conversion may well be "Exemppted Development".

Retain the services of an experienced Arch Technician, Building Surveyor or Engineer for advise based on a visual inspection of your attic.


----------



## onq (12 Nov 2009)

RKQ said:


> Comfort the purchaser? False certification is fraud.


Quite, but as I haven't inspected I am not in a position to state this definitively. What I am aiming to do is just point out a few items of concern to the Op and bring some common sense to my replies. Its all too easy to end up finger pointing to no end - see my comments on legal action below 


> Any house build after july 1992 must have a Certificate of Compliance with Building Control.


Any house commenced after the 1st day of June 1992 requires to be built in compliance with the Building Regulations 1991 as amended.
As far as I know, there is no legal requirement for a "Certificate of Compliance with Building Control", whatever that may be.
The Architects Opinion of Compliance with Building Regulations makes reference to the Commencement Notice being served in compliance with the requirements of the Building Control Regulations and you may be confusing the two.


> The Certificates should be with the Deeds of the property. If someone falsely "issue" a Certificate of Compliance then you will have an excellent legal case against them.


I doubt it, which is why I played down the whole legal thing so as not to excite the OP - if the house is built and improperly certified more than six years I think you'll find the Statute of Limitations probably applies. Even if its within the six years, what will legal action gain the OP? A bigger house? The works redone free of charge? Unlikely.

Many small offices or one man bands operate without P.I. cover and may be a man-of-straw or an unqualified individual. The court may expect to see that the purchaser was aware of the caveat emptor rule and made sure themselves that the property was compliant by having it surveyed by a competent building professional. In other words the court may not award costs, where the purchaser has failed to act to protect themselves. Plus, who is the purchaser suing, the person who sold it to them? Because the builder didn't work for the purchaser, but the previous owner.

Either way, only someone very brave or very foolhardy contemplates legal action in such cases. My recent experience suggests that the courts take the view that technical argument should be dealt with through arbitration, rather than wasting taxpayers money and prefer that the parties settle in the halls - again, each side can end up bearing their own costs..


> If the house was build before 1992 then the attic conversion may well be "Exemppted Development".


Works completed prior to the 13th December 1989 are deemed to have Bye-Law Approval, whether or not they were built in compliance with the Building Bye Laws or not, unless enforcement action had already issued.
Works "prior to 1992" - specifically the 1st June 1992- and after 13th of December 1992 are not covered by this provision and they require a Bye Law Approval in those areas of the country where Building Bye Laws were in force.


> Retain the services of an experienced Arch Technician, Building Surveyor or Engineer for advise based on a visual inspection of your attic.


While the building professionals you mention are competent enough within their own fields, the OP's best bet is probably to retain an architect who knows his way around the various Acts and Regulations.
Architects - or persons acting as architects prior to May 2008 - are the people who normally issue Opinions of Compliance and are therefore best suited to review matters of non-compliance. As you can see from the points I've made above, there are a lot of particular dates and titles to address. 

BTW it would be interesting to discover whether the attic is or is not compliant and if certified, whether the person issuing the cert was qualified or not and whether that person was a member of the RIAI or not.

FWIW

ONQ.

[broken link removed]


----------



## RKQ (12 Nov 2009)

onq said:


> if the house is built and improperly certified more than six years I think you'll find the Statute of Limitations probably applies. Even if its within the six years, what will legal action gain the OP? A bigger house? The works redone free of charge? Unlikely.


 
I wish you were correct but alast you are not. IMO The Statute of Limitations will not apply to a *false certification* because it can be proved that the Architect knew it didn't comply but certified that it did comply - simple fraud.



onq said:


> Many small offices or one man bands operate without P.I. cover and may be a man-of-straw or an unqualified individual. The court may expect to see that the purchaser was aware of the caveat emptor rule and made sure themselves that the property was compliant by having it surveyed by a competent building professional.


Anyone operating without P.I cover is IMO a cowboy. Certificates of Compliance are required from the Seller. A Building Survey is not a Certificate of Compliance. The Surveyor may spot non-compliant issues and report same but a Survey primarily deals with structural integrity. IMO all Solicitors have required a copy of P.I insurance for over a decade. The Law Society can confirm this.



onq said:


> Either way, only someone very brave or very foolhardy contemplates legal action in such cases.


If you suffer a loss due to fraud etc you are entitled to compensation. The Courts are very busy with such cases.

OP please do not worry. I haven't inspected your property, so I an unable to give a professional opinion. I do hope we are not confusing you. The date the attic was converted is important. Your address is also important regarding bye-laws that may have existed prior to 1992 (Council area).

I would suggest that you retain an experienced Architectural Technician, Building Surveyor or Engineer. An MRIAI Architect could also be retained but they are not specifically trained in Building Control and therefore may not be able give an opinion.


----------



## onq (12 Nov 2009)

RKQ said:


> I wish you were correct but alast you are not. IMO The Statute of Limitations will not apply to a *false certification* because it can be proved that the Architect knew it didn't comply but certified that it did comply - simple fraud.



Thank you for drawing my attention to this part of the law - not one I usually come across in my dealings I have to say!

The relevant part of the Act appears to be as follows:
_CHAPTER V Fraud and mistake_​ _


Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud. 

*71.*—(1) Where, in the case of an action for which a period of limitation is fixed by this Act, either—

 ( a ) the action is based on the fraud of the defendant or his agent or of any person through whom he claims or his agent, or

 ( b ) the right of action is concealed by the fraud of any such person,

 the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.

 (2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall enable an action to be brought to recover, or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know or have reason to believe that any fraud had been committed.

---------------------------------------------------

_If I am reading you correctly RKQ, you would rely on the fact that the fraud might be discovered if, for example, you or I inspected the property and called it to the client's attention.

In my earlier post I drew attention to the principle of caveat emptor and the practice, common enouhg amongst hosue buyers and in the industry of retaining a professional to inspect the property, particularly where there are unusual issues arising in relation to extension or conversiona for example.The fraud in this may have been perpetrated by the original certifier, but it can be argued that there was an onus on the purchaser to diligently inspect and, if this had been done, the possible fraud could have been discovered in or around the time of purchase.

So, yes, you are quite correct and I have learnt something about cases od fraud today - and thank you for the lesson - but even within this legislation there are qualifying conditions that could allow any perpetrator to escape retribution.

But even where a perpetrator could be held liable, we would be back to the methods of redress and straw man arguments noted above.

An interesting exchange, and I look forward to more of them .

I'll take issue with you on one thing

You say 

"I would suggest that you retain an experienced Architectural Technician, Building Surveyor or Engineer. An MRIAI Architect could also be retained but they are not specifically trained in Building Control and therefore may not be able give an opinion."

Architects are specifically trained in all matters in relation to buildings, and professionally qualified archtitects 


of more than 10 years standing
who have worked under and MRIAI for 7 years or
who have achieved a professional practice as MRIAI's
all may be found to have a certain competence in relation to Building Control matters.
Whatever about Chartered Surveyors, the persons you cite do not in my experience have the competence you suggest.

ONQ.


----------



## Towger (12 Nov 2009)

But as ONQ says, it is worth the bother of going to court?

For example I have a 'lean to' extension on a house I bought. I have both a Certificate of Compliance and Survey saying it is sound/meets requirements etc. However, it has a 10 degree roof pitch and standard concrete tiles which require at least 25 degrees. No to mention the slight dip in the middle from the weight of the tiles. As you can guess it leaks like a sieve in driving rain and the felt has now rotted. All builders/roofers who have seen it say the fault is basic and obvious. 

So do I:
A, Sue the architect and his company who issued the Certificate of Compliance. AFAIK, the surveys are not worth the paper they are written on.

B, Curse the two different architects under my breath and fork out 3.5-4.0k from my pocket for replacing the roof.


----------



## RKQ (12 Nov 2009)

I am happy to offer free professional advise on this forum. I have offered my opinion on this thread just to help the OP.
I have no wish to be confrontational, to argue, play word games or contradict.

I really enjoy friendly debate. I honestly hope that any advice given will help the OP. I believe that all opinions are valid and should be respected. At the end of the day the OP must decide on the advice given.

I find in life that each individual must make their own decision. We all have something to contribute and we all continue to learn.

Towger, sometimes if something has been badly and incorrectly built it is not financially viable to persue legal action. In fact legal action can sometimes over complicate an issue, costing both parties dearly. I certainly did not advocate legal action - that issue would have to be discussed with a Solicitor.

ONQ I would prefer to call this an "interesting debate" and I do hope there will be many more - in a friendly, respectful and courtious atmosphere. 
RKQ


----------



## onq (12 Nov 2009)

Towger said:


> But as ONQ says, it is worth the bother of going to court?
> 
> For example I have a 'lean to' extension on a house I bought. I have both a Certificate of Compliance and Survey saying it is sound/meets requirements etc. However, it has a 10 degree roof pitch and standard concrete tiles which require at least 25 degrees. No to mention the slight dip in the middle from the weight of the tiles. As you can guess it leaks like a sieve in driving rain and the felt has now rotted. All builders/roofers who have seen it say the fault is basic and obvious.
> 
> ...



Towger,

I think this is the substance of another thread rather than this one.
However I will venture this advice and preface it with reference to the statute of limitations comments above from RKQ

The District Court is a wonderful place.
You can take claims their up to €6,300 inclusive as far as I am aware and there are moves afoot to raise this limit.
It is effectively the small claims court and I think your relatively limited and quite specific claim could go there.
This is distinct from the OP's claim which could exceed €6.3K if everything required to be redone.

HTH

ONQ.


----------



## onq (12 Nov 2009)

RKQ said:


> <snip>
> ONQ I would prefer to call this an "interesting debate" and I do hope there will be many more - in a friendly, respectful and courtious atmosphere.
> RKQ



I hope you have found this one friendly respectful and courteous, RKQ.
For my part I am happy to see my errors corrected and have stated as much, and to read and offer opinions and competent advice also.
I believe it is particularly important to ensure that any advice given is as accurate and current as we can deliver.
Despite the disclaimers, don't you just know that some people will try to act on free advice given here as opposed to retaining a competent building professional of whatever qualification.

Here's to many more of them.

ONQ.


----------



## homeowner (20 Nov 2009)

I have been reading eagerly through these posts and my head is spinning from all the detail 

The house was built in 1989 but I dont know when the attic conversion was done, from the looks of it its isnt recent (paint work alone looks at least 10 years old).  How can I find out?  My main concern is that if I go to sell the house I wont have the required documents.

From your posts it seems like i need to get a "Building Suveyor" to give a written "opinion of compliance"? 

ONQ's comments that the joists and stairs do not seem to be compliant have me worried.  

If we get a surveyor in and he says it doent comply with regulations are we obliged legally to get it fixed?

We are not even thinking of selling at the moment but we want all the paperwork squared away regardless.

If anyone can recommend a good building suveyor can you please PM me.  Or if anyone knows how I find out if I need a cert of compliance since the house was built in 1989 can you advise how I can find out?

Appreciate all the comments and info so far.


----------



## mf1 (20 Nov 2009)

Can I just check something? 

You bought in 2006 - so this was flagged at the time? It should have been dealt with in your Contract.  What enquiries did you make then and were you satisfied with the results of your enquiries? 

Do you have a mortgage? If you do, then your title deeds should be with your lender and the certificate you are seeking should be with those deeds. 

As regards the "certificate" - it really, really, really depends on what the "certificate" says! I have seen  "certificates" that are worse than  useless because they "certify" nothing! And rightly so. It's a question for the purchaser, their solicitor and their architect as to whether they were willing to proceed on the basis of what it is they were offered. And without seeing the certificate, you cannot comment any further.

mf


----------



## onq (21 Nov 2009)

Homeowner,

You are correct to be concerned, but you don't want to end up beating yourself up with a stick over something that is not your fault and may not be a problem at all. We are only speculating at a distance after all and not conducting an inspection.

A competent building surveyor or architect well versed in the building regulations should inspect. They may required limited opening up to assess the insulation and will measure the stairs geometry and the floor joist dimensions and spacing. A structural engineer should do the floor loading calculation. It may be possible to issue an opinion of compliance with building regulations based on visual inspection, or limited open up where required.

Whoever does this for you, depending on where this goes, may need to be able to act as a witness for you and swear a statement.

Cannot access your PM page for some reason - having a bit of difficulty with it this week. Try the e-mail on the www sig below as I cannot e-mail you.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]


----------

