The Due Diligence Challenge: Securing a Retrospective Warranty Without Full Build Records

Securing a retrospective new build warranty is an item often triggered by a lender’s request, an upcoming sale, or a refinance. However, one of the biggest challenges to obtaining a warranty retrospectively is incomplete or missing build records.

Developments that have changed hands, undergone phased construction, or relied on multiple contractors often lack a full paper trail, making warranty placement more complex. But while missing documents create hurdles, they don’t necessarily mean a warranty is out of reach. The key lies in understanding what insurers really need and how developers can overcome documentation gaps.

What A-rated Insurers actually require to quote on retrospective warranties:

Unlike a warranty procured from a not started stage, a retrospective warranty relies on post-completion due diligence. Insurers assess several key factors, including structural integrity, build records, and regulatory compliance. A full technical audit is required, often involving site inspections, structural reports, and a review of available documentation. Insurers also expect to see as-built drawings, collateral warranties from the contractors and wider professional team, and building control sign-offs to confirm compliance with regulations at the time of construction.

However, developers often assume that insurers require a complete paper trail when, in reality, alternative forms of verification may be accepted. The real challenge lies in demonstrating structural integrity and compliance when key records are missing.

How to Overcome Documentation Gaps

Here is some guidance on the documentation developers can provide to support the placement of a retrospective building warranty. These documents help insurers assess the structural integrity and compliance of a development, but requirements will vary on a case-by-case basis.

1. Structural Reports as a Substitute for Missing Documents

When key documents are missing, insurers may accept a structural engineer’s report that assesses the integrity of the building. Developers should engage a trusted engineer with warranty experience to carry out inspections and produce a robust assessment.

2. Using Building Control and Monitoring Surveyor Reports

Even when as-built documentation is incomplete, building control and independent monitoring surveyor records can help bridge the gap. A completion certificate from building control is a strong indicator of compliance, though insurers will likely require additional surveys.

3. Site Investigations & Remedial Works

Where insurers identify potential issues due to missing records, targeted remedial works may be required to bring the development up to an insurable standard. Understanding what’s needed early can prevent delays.

How Missing Records Affect Cost & Coverage

Developers should be aware that missing records can significantly impact the cost and scope of a retrospective warranty. Incomplete documentation often leads to higher premiums and exclusions for specific structural elements, as insurers perceive greater risk. The level of due diligence required can also influence coverage limits or policy terms, with insurers potentially imposing stricter conditions.

Additionally, the underwriting process becomes longer when there are documentation gaps, making early engagement crucial to avoid delays and secure the best possible terms.

Retrospective building warranties for complete & part complete developments

For developers dealing with missing build records, the key is engaging early, understanding alternative verification methods, and working with an insurer that can offer pragmatic solutions. With the right approach, securing an A-rated building warranty even with documentation gaps is achievable.

If you have a project you wish to discuss, please call us on 020 3096 0718 or fill in our enquiry form online