skip to Main Content
ISVA: Putting the client first 020 8882 4896

Home Forums Technical Advice Pre-fabricated housing


Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #1879
    David Wheeler MISVA

    I am valuing a semi detached Airey which has been refurbished and has a PRC/NHBC warranty – tick.

    The adjoining house has also been repaired (tick) but overseen by a structural engineer and therefore no PRC.  Some lending sources require both halves to have been repaired but is the other half good enough in this case?  I would have thought there would be ample lenders out there who would give a mortgage but apparently it has been turned down by NatWest.  Any thoughts?


    Stephen Quirk MISVA

    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.





    I’ve found that it just depends on lender policy, for some, their attitude to risk seems to have changed more recently.

    I’m aware both NW and Halifax have turned away enquiries from one of our brokers.

    and I’ve just done a couple of intrusive inspection reports for Santander and Nationwide, admittedly on BISF Type A1, fabricated by notable British Iron & Steel Federation British Steel Homes Ltd which have been offered.

    although the same Broker is trying to place a Unity Type re-build and extension just one side repaired, so I’ll report back on the out come.

    I recently did a (Beattie Passive System dwelling) for (Keystone Property Finance) where the warranty provider was in receivership, that one went through fine I believe.

    If you are going to start of course you need PI cover to do these type inspections, but it does seem to me, some of the lenders just want the additional comfort no matter what.

    I hope that helps.



    David Wheeler MISVA

    That is very helpful, thank you both (and also MG for his telephoned response).  On balance I have decided to come up with a value for the rebuilt and certified Airey (only slightly less than a traditional build) but then deduct 5% to allow for next door not being done under the scheme.  Only an opinion of course, but at least based on evidence and research.

    Happy for the thread to remain open should any others have comments in the future, or wish to refer to it.



    Who was the lender you were valuing for?

    Alan R Young MISVA

    I was involved in repairing a number of Airey houses a few decades ago using the Leeds City Council repair system which basically involved forming masonry walls to relieve the faulty posts of their load bearing function.  Option 1 dealt with the external walls only, and left the Party and Internal wall untouched on the basis that these were internal and therefore much less likely to deteriorate. The second option was to deal with all the walls (internal and external) and those repaired in this way were then considered to be conventional houses and therefore acceptable for mortgage lending purposes.

    These houses a have all sold and some resold since that time and it therefore appears to be the case that there are lenders out there who will take these on providing there is proof that they have been fully repaired and that the necessary Consents were obtained and complied with. In these case PP was required, in addition to B Regs, as they increased in size due to the additional masonry outer wall

    I also believe (but have  not been able to verify)  that some of the partially repaired houses were later mortgaged following the issue of a “Certificate of Structural Adequacy” by an Engineer, and I presume that this certification was only required to cover the mortgage period

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Back To Top