addition with no ccc, section 95a letter - insurance, finance, etc.

[khayyam]

We are considering a (weatherboard) house which has an addition with no CCC. The owners had the council out to inspect, many years after the addition was done, and the council refused to issue a CCC and instead sent a section 95A letter detailing the reasons they won't issue a CCC.

Despite this, we're thinking of making an offer. The idea is that if we can appropriately price in the work needed to get the CCC, then we can do that a few years down the track. Insurance seems to be an issue, though. Their current insurance company won't transfer the existing policy to us. Our current insurance company says they will consider it, but the underwriters will need to see the builders inspection report (which we don't have, yet).

If we can't get insurance, then we can't get finance, and so might as well stop now. Is the only way to establish if we can get insurance really to pay to have the inspection done? On the one hand, that seems totally reasonable from the insurers perspective, but I'm wary of wasting $1k just to be told we can't get insurance.

[John the builder]

The insurers should recognize that the work has a building consent and is approved with inspections including the s95A that if you read carefully will not have anything of a serious nature just the usual BS about doubt in construction which they should have inspected for anyway?

The problem is ignorant banks and insurers who are looking for excuses to bump up premiums and % and mitigate risk.
Make sure the insurer understands the situation. Most policy wording is around building consents and unapproved work not CCC.
If they wont lend on yours, how do they reconcile the hundreds of thousands of houses built prior to 1992 that also dont have a "consent" or a CCC either(because they were there before the building act!).
ask them to give undertaking that they will insure subject to reasonable report on condition

A s95A letter should be considered a CCC with the matters raised simply outstanding issues of little importance to an perhaps 20 yr old building which if it did have a CCC issued then would be in the same condition and performing the same, as it is now without one?

The s95A is supposed to be actual reasons for refusal but am I correct they are just general excuses to not issue? i.e. 'Concerns' rather than unexplained failures of a code clause? unsealed penetration cladding /ground clearances .....

[khayyam]

Thanks John. Yes as you say mostly things like unsealed cladding penetration and ground clearances, and some things they couldn't inspect because of access. The most serious seems to be deck stringers direct fixed to cladding. Seems to me the deck will have to come off in order to sort that.

I agree that there are many silly things about the current regime, and would hope that insurance will be ok with a reasonable report.

[Castlerose]

My understanding from reading that, is that it isnt approved with inspections..? If it had been a CCC would have been issued. Having a building concent means nothing if the Building act requirements were not adhered to sufficiently to issue a CCC? Without reading it, no-one can say the s95A will not have anything of a serious nature and to say otherwise may mislead these people in to buying when it may cost a more than they'd accounted for.

I understand the referral to pre building act properties and justying insuring them but that doesn work either - it should but it doesn't because Ive been in that sitution and they don't want to know. All they say is that was then, this is now - which is also correct, and we all know how they will try any clause to get out of paying if they can, so I'd be wanting a guarantee before buying and the only way to do that is to satisfy their requirements and pay for a building inspection. We can all 'rail' about the injustice etc but there's no point in swimming upstream so to speak, all that happens is you get worn out and end up no further ahead. I'd say definitely get one anyway - $1000 is well worth it if you discover $5000 - $20,000 (or more!) hidden issues, or that your calculations on the cost to obtain a CCC are incorrect...

[John the builder]

My understanding from reading that, is that it isnt approved with inspections..? If it had been a CCC would have been issued. Having a building concent means nothing if the Building act requirements were not adhered to sufficiently to issue a CCC? Without reading it, no-one can say the s95A will not have anything of a serious nature and to say otherwise may mislead these people in to buying when it may cost a more than they'd accounted for.

consent to build is the building consent.

I didnt say dont do due diligence. If an isnsurer want to be a dick then find another one?

[John the builder]

T

he most serious seems to be deck stringers direct fixed to cladding. Seems to me the deck will have to come off in order to sort that.

it is BS they are simply applying comparison with current acceptable solution and they should be looking at code clause that are perfromance based. The test is is it working???

As I said councils use s95A to find excuses why not to issue a CCC rather than actual valid reasons

Is the alteration just the deck?

[khayyam]

Bedroom + deck.