problems with the survey

Milliewilly

poppysarah wrote: »

No point in having a survey unless you're going to use it to haggle.

Get some serious written uotes from builders about sorting the issues out.

Deduct that plus 10% or ask them to get the work done.

I would not sell for another 10% off after deducting the building work costs.

SirSaverOBE

I must admit, asking them to pay an amount based on written quotes is one thing, but levying a 10% surcharge because you want money off doesn't sound like a great way to get the vendor to play ball. I will get quotes and see what happens.

poppysarah

Milliewilly wrote: »

I would not sell for another 10% off after deducting the building work costs.

Building work is a risk. Uncovering a roof could result in the place not being habitable, or take long time, be stressful, might cost more etc etc

Even organising builders takes time and effort.

nightbuffalo

me any my other half bought a house built in 1901 four months ago. we both had kittens when we got the survey back... well, me more than her but I'm a natural born worrier - a veritable novel of things to contend with.

having taken the plunge, I have absolutely no regrets. of course this depends on the individual house, but I've read many survey queries on this forum which list pretty much the same "points of worry" on houses of this age - external woodwork, guttering, plumbing etc... it seemed we were gonna have to go so far as to rebuild the bloody thing.

from the viewings we knew we were gonna have to do quite a bit of work over time. so far we've had to get the bathroom done, but that was only cos a minor leak spurred us into action.

good luck, and cheers.

Milliewilly

poppysarah wrote: »

Building work is a risk. Uncovering a roof could result in the place not being habitable, or take long time, be stressful, might cost more etc etc

Even organising builders takes time and effort.

I would still not take another 10% off for something that might not happen.

That's the point of getting a builders quote not an estimate. The potential vendor will know the details of the schedule of works from the quote that is obtained prior to deciding whether to purchase the house, they are choosing the builder. If the buyer cannot work out that there may be some disruption thats not the vendors problem to compensate them.

Can the vendor come back and ask for the difference if the work turns out to be cheaper and doesn't take as long? No. Can the vendor be compensated by the buyer for the inconvenience of having to knock down the price? Where does it end?

On the average house price another 10% you are talking about c£12K - £15K tax free that is a LOT of nights in a luxury hotel whilst the builders take the roof off plus compensation!

How does the vendor know the buyer will get the work done at all? We read all the time on here about works needing to be done after surveys but the vendors are living there at the time and people are wanting to buy so the properties are generally not uninhabitable.

Have you ever successfully negotiated another 10% off for the 'inconvenience' of getting the vendor to pay for building works on your potential property?

David_Aldred

Hi SirsaverOBE,
Your comments by your surveyor caught my eye and just wondered if the following was confirmed: Common furniture beetle is often referred to as 'woodworm' and damage to loft timbers within bark or close to bark left upon loft timbers is often misadiagnosed as 'woodworm' when it is in fact bark borer beetle that has similar round emergence holes of 1-2mm. The crucial difference being that bark borer once it emerges from the wood does not re-infest and accordingly does not require insecticide or other means of control other than stripping away the bark.

The other thing to note is control of common furniture beetle by such means as insecticides has to be justified under a host of regulations including Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH). This control has been given more attention over recent years since many insecticides in common use once used to kill these insects in properties have had to be withdrawn because operatives using such chemicals and people entering loft voids and kicking up the dust containing the insecticide making it airborne and then inhaling the chemicals have had health issues including cancers. Current insecticide remains approved by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) but then again the chemicals that have been withdrawn were once similarly on the approved list.

Accordingly unless live beetles or larva have actually been found within the timber or adjacent surfaces consistent with this insect then there is no justifcation for treatment. Just because you see holes or bore dust or dead insects consistent with common furniture beetle is not the same as a proven live infestation where you have a live beetle or larva you have removed from the wood in the area of concern. You can keep spraying chemicals until the cows come home and you won't make the holes disappear and hence properties will be sprayed time and again for inactive 'woodworm'.

If you have live beetles / larva consistent with this insect then fair enough consider the options. If you have not then budget for the cost in your purchase negotiations as a worst case scenario and monitor for at least twelve months in order to confirm whether that infestation is actually active or not.

Given that the beetles tend to emerge from the wood to breed during late Spring to late Summer (though the period depending upon conditions can sometimes be found to be extended) it does make one question whether the surveyor inspecting in November has simply seen the emergence holes and a) assumed it is common furniture beetle and b) has assumed those holes indicate the infestation is actually active (which holes alone simply do not).

When you are obtaining quotations to treat timbers with insecticide within the roof void please note that this should include for removing any obstructions, insulation and all debris from the loft void and then most importantly removing any surface coatings such as paint and crucially industrial vacuuming throughout the loft void because unless the insecticide is applied on totally clean bare timber it will be ineffective and a waste of both time and money (which it will be anyway if actually inactive). There also needs to be compliance with the Party Wall Act and the owner / occupant of the adjoining property needs to be advised regarding their health and safety as well as the owner / occupiers of the subject property. Because not all surfaces of the timbers within loft voids can be reached treatment will only ever be partially effective.

Contractors using insecticides should issue all parties with full and complete health and safety written instructions prior to treatment and talk them through these procedures face to face for them to be acted upon and fix warning notices during and after treatment.

Permanent notices after treatment stating who treated the area (including address and telephone number), product used / manufacturer (including address and telephone number) should be fixed in a prominent position to advise anyone entering a treatment area of the potential hazard.

No persons other than those treating the timbers within the confined space of the loft void and those outside that confined space charged with monitoring that operative should be present within the property during treatment and after treatment until the recommended number of hours has passed as set by the product manufacturer. Special considerations are required for protection of services, water tanks, animals, vegetation, persons especially at risk etc and the manufacturer’s instructions and guidance should be strictly adhered to prior to, during and after treatment.

Hope these general comments help, specific cases may well be different. Kindest regards, David Aldred Independent damp and timber surveyor.