David, during the late 1990s I was Principal Building Surveyor to the Vale of White Horse District Council. We had lots of PRC property but no Airey. South Oxfordshire District though had quite a few including in Old Field in Little Milton near Stadhampton, Oxfordshire. The practice of the VWHDC was to ensure that private PRC property had a PRC6 but the council owned ones were overseen by a structural engineer with suitable insurance because the NHBC would not issue a certificate to the council. The reason for the engineers certificate was that we must not discriminate against tenants who would want to buy their property. Only when the NHBC realised that issuing certificates would be a “money-spinner” did they reconsider.
For me, if a former PRC property has had all of the defective PRC components removed then it is not a PRC building but perfectly normal, standard construction! Looking at the Licence no and details will confirm. If the adjoining property has been “repaired”, has an engineers certificate and looks the same, why should it be considered anything other than “standard construction” ?
Regarding Lending? When I spent a year at Lloyds (Colleys); the word from the top was that the bank was “the peoples bank” and that they should help to fund any property, especially if it has been “repaired”. Most financial advisors should be aware of which lenders are content to lend on former PRC properties.
There still appears to be quite a bit of ignorance within lending circles about “former PRC” properties but of course it is easier to advise against lending although I have not heard of any instances when Former PRC properties have “failed”. The irony is of course that we are now long past the guarantee period which was 10 years! Ensuing that the property has been repaired in accordance with a System Licence is however very important and I would suggest vital.
So do the rest of our profession feel likewise? I would like to know.