NEED ADVICE: Surveyors, negligence, or mortgage company duty of care

nicky_bodmin

clutton wrote: »

What sort of survey was done ?

Did it mention the flooding risk ?

Hi thanks for reply.
He made reference to flooding and said there was no chance of flooding

nicky_bodmin

pawpurrs wrote: »

Sorry to hear the situation that you are in. However I dont understand how the surveyor is at fault here, why is the property flooding is the main question, one of the questions on the SPIF is has the property ever been flooded? If the property was prone to flooding then this should have been answered truthfully. How does it flood and why?

thanks for your reply.

The flooding is caused by a farmers field.I found out from the envirnment agency that on the O.S.Map that my property is sat on land that is naturaly in a dip and the water travels for about a mile and half to the lowest point. My house

nicky_bodmin

PasturesNew wrote: »

I've tried to understand, is this right?:

I live in a house, I remortgaged that house and bought a BTL property - the plan was to sell this in a few years and with the profit it would clear my mortgage on my main home.

However, my BTL property has flooded and because of this and because it was a newbuild and because the market has crashed it is now worth peanuts.

Can I sue the surveyor because of the change in value?

Is that what you mean?

Hi, the plan was not to sell the house but had no choise in the end. It was not a new build but an old farm house that had been badly rebuilt.
The negative equity is due to the amount of work needed to bring it back to markit value.
A rebuild of the house would be a cheeper option than to correct the problems in it

ILW

As asked before, did you pay for a full survey, or did you just have the buiding societies valuation. A full survey would have cost around £1000 but you could then sue the surveyor.

jessbob

nicky_bodmin wrote: »

thanks for the reply. The surveyor said in survey that there was not chance of flooding.
The value of the property today is not a reflection of our economical climate but as a result of a long list of problems.
The vender bought the house as a shell rebuilt it and exstended the property with a totaly seperate dwelling,.a one bedroomed house.
He didnt apply for any kind of planning to built the second house, and as a result of this
There is no foundation on this new 2 story extension
No building regs have been applied to the build.
The list is so long and none of the problems to a trained eye would have gone undetected

So, if its a newbuild, why didn't the solicitor that acted for you when you purchased ask for evidence of planning and building regs?

nicky_bodmin

G_M wrote: »

If you can prove negligence/incompetence by the surveyor you may have a case - what kind of survey did you get and what did it say?

If the vendor lied to you eg saying there was no history of previous flooding, and you can prove there WAS a history of flooding, you may have a case.

Otherwise it was your decision when you bought how much you where willing to pay.

Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
The problems in the property is much more than just the flooding problem, it is a constant problem in every area of the house construction.
It was requested by the mortgage company to see if the property was worth the money being borrowed. The answer is simply no.
I no I decided to buy the house but if I had known that there was so much wrong with it I would have turned and ran.
I shouldnt have been allowed to buy the property with a mortgage because its not mortgagable

ILW

nicky_bodmin wrote: »

Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
The problems in the property is much more than just the flooding problem, it is a constant problem in every area of the house construction.
It was requested by the mortgage company to see if the property was worth the money being borrowed. The answer is simply no.
I no I decided to buy the house but if I had known that there was so much wrong with it I would have turned and ran.
I shouldnt have been allowed to buy the property with a mortgage because its not mortgagable

In the end it was your decision to buy. As you chose not to get a full survey done there is nobody else you can blame, the BS just lent you the money and I believe will pursue you to get it back. I cannot understand forking out a small fortune and not getting the place surveyed first, but I am sure you had your reasons.

dopester

nicky_bodmin wrote: »

Shortly after the re mortgage I started having major flooding problems this brought to light that the property I had bought at full market falue was not worth more than the land value only.

In many instances the bulk of the value of a house is in the land - not the bricks and mortar.

Also land values are subject to significant changes. They don't trade in some narrow margin of value.

Lot of re-mortgaging going on there. Did you get a survey on the 2nd house with all the problems?

All I no is I have lost almost every thing I have worked all my life for because of it.

Yep.

G_M

The surveyor said in survey that there was not chance of flooding.

It was requested by the mortgage company to see if the property was worth the money being borrowed. The answer is simply no.

This seems strange. Your 1st statement implies a detailed survey, which would give you grounds for complaint/claim.
Your 2nd statement impiles a valuation which is unlikely to include guarantees about flooding.

What survey did you get? Did you pay £150-200 or nearer £800-1K?

Can you provide a quote of the relevant part of the survey?