Bought huose but Survey Didn't spot the dry rot - help!

neverdespairgirl

d900 wrote: »

seems to me anyone not having a full survery when moving house is a little silly.

It depends on the circumstances. For some people, it's not silly.

My parents bought a house with no survery at all in 2004. It is a medieval hall house, built in 1320, and extended a various points and rebuilt up until the 1560s. It had been owned and lived in by the same family since the 1840s, the last occupants being 3 very elderly, reclusive spinster sisters, who died in their 90s.

My parents knew the house needed MAJOR work. And they also knew that a surveyor wouldn't be much help, as a lot of the details of the work wouldn't become clear until the renovation actually started, and surveyors don't know much about wooden frame houses that old.

vivatifosi

I filed a small claim when I found faults (not as serious as yours) following my survey. I had paid for a full structural survey.

I had a real fight to get money, but they did eventually settle out of court for about 1/3 of the value of the repairs. Most surveys are limited on payout to "diminution of value" rather than the actual value of repairs and I went back through previous court cases to work out that was what I would get back.

Some surveyors do pay up, but others can really fight. In that case its important to keep any evidence. In my case they said something along the lines of "well how can you expect us to know about damp floors when there are fitted carpets?" We had kept a sample of the mouldy carpet, which was clearly mouldy to the top layer to prove this.

In our case it was essential to pay for a second survey before the initial surveyor would even play ball. That was another expense we hadn't budgeted for (and didn't get back) but it was worthwhile because by that time we had no idea what state the house was in and it gave us a degree of assurance.

I hope your friend gets some to recoup some of the cost, but it really isn't easy.

waggys

We had a housebuyers report on the property we purchased 7 years ago. Whilst there were no fundamental problems with the house, we discovered that the DPC to the garage was lying on the concrete path running alongside the garage and was not positioned 1.5-2 bricks above ground level.

We wrote a letter of complaint to the surveyors, who replied by saying as the garage was not a habitable building in their opinion it didn't matter. We replied saying that as far as we were concerned it was a problem otherwise why bother to build the garage with a DPC in the first place. They paid 300 to have the concrete path dug up and relaid.

They have a duty of care! They are paid to inspect the property and unless carpets are nailed down etc so they can't gain access to areas, you have a right to have the property inspected with a duty of care so that you can make an informed decision as to whether or not to proceed with a house purchase. Check the survey report to see whether it mentions 'unable to view due to fitted carpets' etc etc.

There is a RICS helpline where you can get 1/2 hours free advice (Google RICS) if you need further clarification.

marshmallow79

So in the case of my surveyor not telling me there was a history of subsidence even though he'd noticed a crack caused through movement on the outside of the house I should have some come back? Do surveyors have to look into the history of a building if they suspect past movement and tell you? Or should my solicitor have told me on receiving the searches back and finding the warrenty for the underpinning in there?
I'm just wondering which of the two idiots (sorry I'm angry:mad:)I should be chasing?