Electrical survey required for house sale?

[AlanD]

Apologies if this is something I should be able to find easily with google,
access blocked from work but I can get to usenet from my phone!

Just had concerned phone call from my MiL.
We're in the process of swapping houses, we're buying her's, she's buying
ours.
We're trying to do the transaction as cheaply and quickly as possible.

Her solicitor has told her she needs to get an electrical survey done on
her house before she can sell it. Cost about £60.
So far our solicitor has not asked for one to sell our house.
Clearly for £60 it can't be a very detailed survey - just visual check I
think.

Does anyone know if this survey is actually a legal requirement, or just an
over enthusiastic solicitor?

Alan.

[Andrew Mawson]

"AlanD" wrote in message
news:2121650891374418651.027692al...@news.usenext.com...

--
Are mortgage companies involved? Maybe they have dictats?

AWEM

[AlanD]

We have a mortgage, she doesn't.
As far as I know the solicitors haven't spoken to each other yet, so I
think it's unlikely our mortgage co is insisting on it.
They did want a valuation survey, which was done last week.

[David WE Roberts]

"AlanD" <alz_...@nospam.ajdeane.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2121650891374418651.027692al...@news.usenext.com...

Or a solicitor who has a mate who is an electrician and looking for work?

A quick Google couldn't find anything about legislation.
It is normally very sensible to get a survey of the property, including
electrics and plumbing, before a sale but I do not believe that this is a
legal requirement.
IIRC you do have to have an energy assesment.

The following site
http://www.infraredhomediagnosis.co.uk/faq.html
says

"Since the amendments to the wiring regulations in 2008 many homes fixed
wiring installations now do not comply with the current regulations. The
requirement for Periodic Inspection Reports (PIR’s) have continued to
develop with legislation that now requires that every home for sale in the
UK Requires the home owner to declare when the property was last
electrically tested and with let properties requiring a periodic inspection
report also, any potential buyer or tenant may try to haggle and renegotiate
prices with you, if they even put any offer in at all!"

which reads like semi-literate scaremongering to me but doesn't mention that
a report is mandatory.
Given the general tone I would expect then to highlight it if there was a
mandatory requirement.

I am also not sure about rented property requiring a periodic electrical
inspection - I know you need an anual gas safety check but AFAIK there is no
such electrical requirement.

Cheers

Dave R
--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[jgharston]

David WE Roberts wrote:
> "Since the amendments to the wiring regulations in 2008 many homes fixed
> wiring installations now do not comply with the current regulations.

Well, almost 100% of homes' wiring will not comply to the *current*
regs as they will have been wired to comply with the regs current
at the time the work was done. It bno way means that you have to
rip out the entire house to comply with regs that have moved on
since, just that whatever work is done *once the regs have changed*
are compliant to *whatever regs are current at the time the work is
done*.

JGH

[Bill Taylor]

Your MIL has an incompetent or lying conveyancer (almost certainly a
solicitors clerk, not a solicitor). If you market a house you need to
have an Energy Performance Certificate before you can put it on the
market. Apart from that there are no requirements for any surveys.

If I were you I'd do it myself. Transfers of registered property are
dead simple; the only fly in the ointment is that there's a mortgage
involved and the mortgagor will probably insist on a conveyancers
involvement. For a transaction between trusted parties there is no
need to employ 2 conveyancers.

[Bill Taylor]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:37:42 +0000, Bill Taylor <no...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:20:52 +0100, AlanD
><alz_...@nospam.ajdeane.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Apologies if this is something I should be able to find easily with google,
>>access blocked from work but I can get to usenet from my phone!
>>
>>Just had concerned phone call from my MiL.
>>We're in the process of swapping houses, we're buying her's, she's buying
>>ours.
>>We're trying to do the transaction as cheaply and quickly as possible.
>>
>>Her solicitor has told her she needs to get an electrical survey done on
>>her house before she can sell it. Cost about £60.
>>So far our solicitor has not asked for one to sell our house.
>>Clearly for £60 it can't be a very detailed survey - just visual check I
>>think.
>>
>>Does anyone know if this survey is actually a legal requirement, or just an
>>over enthusiastic solicitor?
>>
>>Alan.
>

>If you market a house you need to
>have an Energy Performance Certificate before you can put it on the
>market. Apart from that there are no requirements for any surveys.

It looks as if you may need to provide an EPC when a property is sold,
even if it's done privately, in which case both properties would need
one.

[AlanD]

Ok, if I get asked for one will arrange that.
Any idea of the cost to expect?

[AlanD]

Thanks. I have asked her to ask the solicitor why she 'needs' it.
I (as the buyer) have no interest in a visual inspection that I could do
myself, and would rather she does not have to spend money unnecessarily.
I have known the house for 15 years and don't need surveys to tell me what
I already know!

[John Rumm]

The latter I think. I am not aware of any required inspections other
than the EPC.


--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

[Owain]

On Nov 12, 3:33 pm, AlanD wrote:
> > It looks as if you may need to provide an EPC when a property is sold,
> > even if it's done privately, in which case both properties would need
> > one.
> Ok, if I get asked for one will arrange that.
> Any idea of the cost to expect?

"from" £35 at http://www.justepc.co.uk/
£47.99 fixed at http://www.nationwideepc.com/

Owain

[A.Lee]

David WE Roberts <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> "Since the amendments to the wiring regulations in 2008 many homes fixed
> wiring installations now do not comply with the current regulations. The
> requirement for Periodic Inspection Reports (PIR's) have continued to
> develop with legislation that now requires that every home for sale in the
> UK Requires the home owner to declare when the property was last
> electrically tested and with let properties requiring a periodic inspection
> report also, any potential buyer or tenant may try to haggle and renegotiate
> prices with you, if they even put any offer in at all!"
>
> which reads like semi-literate scaremongering to me but doesn't mention that
> a report is mandatory.

It is bollocks. Houses being sold need no certification of their
electrical installation, and rented houses do not need to have a 'PIR',
well, they couldnt have one anyway, as there is no such thing as a PIR
now, it is an Electrical Installation Condition Report.

To the OP, unless the mortgage company require a report, dont bother.
�60 will get you FA of a report. It will be a quick look at the
fusebox/CU, possibly bonding, and a quick look at the socket outlets.
Nothing other than a visual 'inspection'. Utter waste of time and money.
To their discredit, NICEIC actually supply forms to fill in for a Visual
Inspection Report.
It is money for nothing, and tells you nothing about the safety of the
installation.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

[AlanD]

Update....
Spoken to MiL to quiz her about what the solicitor said. Turns out they had
requested an EPC which she had misunderstood to be electrical!

Does anyone know if this is required only when marketing (as in
advertising) a property, or if it is required for the actual sale?
In our case the houses aren't being advertised, just sold to each other.

Alan.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:48:44 +0100, AlanD wrote:

> We have a mortgage, she doesn't.
> As far as I know the solicitors haven't spoken to each other yet, so I
> think it's unlikely our mortgage co is insisting on it.
> They did want a valuation survey, which was done last week.

This a private sale, do what you want not what the conveyancing solictors
try to insist that you need. Both of you are aware of the properties and
their short comings, if any. There is no need for searches, certificates
etc. The only thing to check is that either of you are actually legaly
allowed to sell. Is MiLs house actually in her name and not FiLs...

You don't need two solictors either, just one to make sure the Land
Registry forms and other legal stuff is all done properly/correctly.

Mortgage companies might geta bit sniffy as it's not normal and the
ordinary clerks will be out of their depth and not know what to do.

On the money side only a balance needs to change hands not the full sums
in both directions. This may have interesting implications with Stamp
Duty (like you might be able to avoid it...).

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Tim Watts]

AlanD wrote:


> Update....
> Spoken to MiL to quiz her about what the solicitor said. Turns out they
> had requested an EPC which she had misunderstood to be electrical!
>
> Does anyone know if this is required only when marketing (as in
> advertising) a property, or if it is required for the actual sale?
> In our case the houses aren't being advertised, just sold to each other.
>
> Alan.

I am almost certain it only applies to houses being marketed.
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
moral busybodies."

[AlanD]

I tried to use one solicitor for us both but they wouldn't play - 'conflict
of interest'...
Only potential issue is that her house was originally bought with FiL - who
is no longer with us. She has death certificate and will etc however.

Both solicitors insist on 'normal' sell/buy transaction, with fees for
each.
No doubt full sum of money will go both ways, as is tradition.

[Fredxx]

Are you sure? I thought an EPC is only required when marketing a property?

[Robin]

> I am almost certain it only applies to houses being marketed.

IIRC it was the (now abandoned) HIPs which were only needed when houses
etc were marketed. I think the legislation for EPCs requires one
whenever (most) properties are sold (or built or let). All complaints
to the EU - but I'd recommend you give priority to letters to Santa
Claus as they are more likely to yield results.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

[Bill Taylor]

No, I'm not sure. I thought it was only for marketing, but
https://www.gov.uk/buy-sell-your-home/energy-performance-certificates
says

"Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) are needed whenever a property
is:

built
sold
rented"

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:23:55 +0100, AlanD
<alz_...@nospam.ajdeane.co.uk> wrote:

>Both solicitors insist on 'normal' sell/buy transaction, with fees for
>each.

Of course they would. By gad, you couldn't expect them to pass that
up, could you?

[djc]

Is that the legal wording or is it a dumbed down web site interpretation.

--
djc

[Dave Liquorice]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:23:55 +0100, AlanD wrote:

> I tried to use one solicitor for us both but they wouldn't play -
> 'conflict of interest'...

I can see that problem as they are treating the "sale" as a normal
conveyance but this isn't it's an asset swap. Agree on values, swap the
ownership details on the Land Registry and transfer a balance (if any) in
the appropriate direction. Mortgage companies might not like it and will
want valuation surveys but at the end of the day there is still an asset
protecting the loan.

> Only potential issue is that her house was originally bought with FiL -
> who is no longer with us. She has death certificate and will etc
> however.

That is what I was thinking. If the Will was drawn up correctly there
shouldn't be any problems.

> Both solicitors insist on 'normal' sell/buy transaction, with fees for
> each. No doubt full sum of money will go both ways, as is tradition.

I think you need to find another solicitor that doesn't want to treat the
process as two "house sales" just an asset swap. When my sister and I
"sold" our 1/3 shares in my late fathers house to our other sister we
just used one solicitor and didn't bother with the bureaucracy(*) that
surrounds an ordinary house sale.

(*) The only thing I can think of that *has* to be done is changing the
names on the Land Registry and thinking of a figure to give them for the
value, which might lead to avoiding/reducing Stamp Duty.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article <k7rpdb$7bi$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Robin" <rb...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> I am almost certain it only applies to houses being marketed.
>
> IIRC it was the (now abandoned) HIPs which were only needed when houses
> etc were marketed. I think the legislation for EPCs requires one
> whenever (most) properties are sold (or built or let). All complaints
> to the EU - but I'd recommend you give priority to letters to Santa
> Claus as they are more likely to yield results.

Nothing to do with the EU. It just required that governments have
an estimate of the efficiency of their housing stock, something
which could have been done simply with a bit of random sampling.
It was the UK government which gold plated it, turning it into a
job creation scheme for the unemployed, funded by a tax on house
sales. Of course the data is too inaccurate to be of any actual
use, because the quality of the assessors who came forward for
training was a long way below what was actually required, and
the exams had to be dumbed down.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

[Bill Taylor]

I don't know, but the gov.uk sites are usually reliable. I did try to
find a more definitive source, but my appetite for searching
legislation and then interpreting it is very small.

[Robin]

> Nothing to do with the EU. It just required that governments have
> an estimate of the efficiency of their housing stock, something
> which could have been done simply with a bit of random sampling.
> It was the UK government which gold plated it, turning it into a
> job creation scheme for the unemployed, funded by a tax on house
> sales. Of course the data is too inaccurate to be of any actual
> use, because the quality of the assessors who came forward for
> training was a long way below what was actually required, and
> the exams had to be dumbed down.

I was never fully up to speed on the 2002 EU Directive but my
recollection was that it mandated an EPC and I find on checking that
Article 7* starts
with:

"1. Member States shall ensure that, when buildings are
constructed, sold or rented out, an energy performance certificate
is made available to the owner or by the owner to the
prospective buyer or tenant, as the case might be. The validity
of the certificate shall not exceed 10 years.

Certification for apartments or units designed for separate use
in blocks may be based:

- on a common certification of the whole building for blocks
with a common heating system, or

- on the assessment of another representative apartment in
the same block."

I have no doubt you are right to point to scope for gold plating in the
implementation as the Directive leaves Member States to decide the
methodology. But that methodology had to be based on a framework set
out in the Annex to the Duirective which is fairly detailed. Perhaps
readers with overseas property could help on what's required there?


*http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:001:0065:0065:EN:PDF
There's also a 2010 Directive which expands the requirements but I've
not been there.

[Bill Taylor]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:46:11 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
<allsortsn...@howhill.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:23:55 +0100, AlanD wrote:
>
>> I tried to use one solicitor for us both but they wouldn't play -
>> 'conflict of interest'...
>
>I can see that problem as they are treating the "sale" as a normal
>conveyance but this isn't it's an asset swap. Agree on values, swap the
>ownership details on the Land Registry and transfer a balance (if any) in
>the appropriate direction. Mortgage companies might not like it and will
>want valuation surveys but at the end of the day there is still an asset
>protecting the loan.
>

And, as it's a simple transaction with no contentious issues, sack the
solicitors and do it yourself. The Land registry site is very clear,
has all the forms available for download and the staff are very
helpful. (After all, the original intention of the Land Registry was
to make property transfers simple and remove lawyers from the
process.)

>> Only potential issue is that her house was originally bought with FiL -
>> who is no longer with us. She has death certificate and will etc
>> however.
>
>That is what I was thinking. If the Will was drawn up correctly there
>shouldn't be any problems.
>

If the house was held as a beneficial joint tenancy, ownership will
transfer to the surviving partner automatically; a will is irrelevant.
The LR will need to see the death certificate on transfer though.

>> Both solicitors insist on 'normal' sell/buy transaction, with fees for
>> each. No doubt full sum of money will go both ways, as is tradition.
>
>I think you need to find another solicitor that doesn't want to treat the
>process as two "house sales" just an asset swap. When my sister and I
>"sold" our 1/3 shares in my late fathers house to our other sister we
>just used one solicitor and didn't bother with the bureaucracy(*) that
>surrounds an ordinary house sale.
>
>(*) The only thing I can think of that *has* to be done is changing the
>names on the Land Registry and thinking of a figure to give them for the
>value, which might lead to avoiding/reducing Stamp Duty.

Solicitors have just managed to make the sale of my parents house fall
through after 4 months of serial incompetence, by trying to insist on
first registration of the property before transfer. A completely
unneccesary step, but one that would have got them an extra �500 in
fees.

The first registration has now been done by us. It's a very simple
process which took about half an hour to fill in the forms. They were
at the Land Registry less than 24 hours after they were recovered from
the solicitor and given a brief examination by a very helpful person
who confirmed my views that the issues that the solicitors were
raising as problems were complete non-issues.

[AlanD]

Thanks, booked with NationwideEPC.

[Peter Crosland]

On 12/11/2012 19:46, Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:48:44 +0100, AlanD wrote:
>
>> We have a mortgage, she doesn't.
>> As far as I know the solicitors haven't spoken to each other yet, so I
>> think it's unlikely our mortgage co is insisting on it.
>> They did want a valuation survey, which was done last week.
>
> This a private sale, do what you want not what the conveyancing solictors
> try to insist that you need. Both of you are aware of the properties and
> their short comings, if any. There is no need for searches, certificates
> etc. The only thing to check is that either of you are actually legaly
> allowed to sell. Is MiLs house actually in her name and not FiLs...
>
> You don't need two solictors either, just one to make sure the Land
> Registry forms and other legal stuff is all done properly/correctly.

Solicitors are no longer allowed to act for both parties.


--
Regards Peter Crosland

[The Other Mike]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:58:25 +0000, Bill Taylor <no...@invalid.com> wrote:

>Solicitors have just managed to make the sale of my parents house fall
>through after 4 months of serial incompetence, by trying to insist on
>first registration of the property before transfer. A completely
>unneccesary step, but one that would have got them an extra �500 in
>fees.
>
>The first registration has now been done by us. It's a very simple
>process which took about half an hour to fill in the forms. They were
>at the Land Registry less than 24 hours after they were recovered from
>the solicitor and given a brief examination by a very helpful person
>who confirmed my views that the issues that the solicitors were
>raising as problems were complete non-issues.

Doesn't voluntary registration involve the same* scale of fees that rise
according to the value of the property (not the value of a transaction) so that
registering a house that hasn't existed on the register can cost many hundreds
of pounds whereas doing nothing (other than keeping the deeds secure) and
letting it get registered when it needs to be, with the costs falling on the
purchaser, make a far better solution?

* They offer somthing like 75 quid discount iirc for voluntary registration.




--

[ARW]

About the only time a VIR is of any use is when you have a valid EICR and
there is a change of tenant.

--
Adam

[Andy Dingley]

On Monday, 12 November 2012 20:09:28 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
> I am almost certain it only applies to houses being marketed.

Not IMHE. We bought in late 2008, without the house having been marketed. We still needed to pay for an EPC, but not a HIP. (The issue of who paid is another matter...).

As the house is 125 years old, the EPC gave it a uniform zilch rating for everything. Which was no surprise to anyone. Total waste of time and money.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:08:07 +0000, Peter Crosland wrote:

>> You don't need two solictors either, just one to make sure the Land
>> Registry forms and other legal stuff is all done properly/correctly.
>
> Solicitors are no longer allowed to act for both parties.

But this is an "asset swap" not a full marketed house conveyance sale
between complete strangers. It's a mostly paperwork excercise and the
only reason to have a solictor involved is to (hopefully!) make sure the
legal paperwork is done correctly. It's not rocket science but silly
mistakes can be very expensive further down the line.

--
Cheers
Dave.