Who is to blame? Me/Surveyor/Solicitor

Philkm

G_M wrote: »

The fact that "The design is individual and there are no similar ones on the estate" might have rung warning bells about a design change and suggested a survey would have been advisable.

most of the houses on the estate are of 'unique' designs and there is nothing visible 'altered' from the outside i.e. no bits added, dormers etc.

Philkm

blackshirtuk wrote: »

Could you possibly put beams across the ceilings of the downstairs rooms instead? may be more wiggle room on ceiling height downstairs.

you could then either make a feature of them , box them or drop the ceilings to hide them.

I appreciate the idea and if I felt this was self inflicted I would look at doing it this way. The way i feel at the minute though is why the hell should I compromise my home when I purchased in good faith?

Richard_Webster

I appreciate the idea and if I felt this was self inflicted I would look at doing it this way. The way i feel at the minute though is why the hell should I compromise my home when I purchased in good faith?

Sorry but you should have had a proper survey yourself and not cut costs by relying on the lender's valuation..

Philkm

Richard_Webster wrote: »

Sorry but you should have had a proper survey yourself and not cut costs by relying on the lender's valuation..

Why?

I paid my solicitors to ensure I was 'safe' when spending a large amount of money.

The very least I should get is the assurance that I am buying what I thought I was.

milliebear00001

I think the short answer to your question is that you are to blame.

It's almost always madness not to have a survey done on such an expensive purchase - for precisely these reasons. It's a hard way to learn the lesson 'buyer beware', but you are going to have to decide if anything needs doing to the property and then put it right yourself if so. Has anyone actually said the property is dangerous?

G_M

Philkm wrote: »

I appreciate the idea and if I felt this was self inflicted I would look at doing it this way. The way i feel at the minute though is why the hell should I compromise my home when I purchased in good faith?

The faith you had was in your own ability to undertake the role of surveyor. As i said before 'mis-placed confidence'.

Looks self inflicted to me I'm afraid.

milliebear00001

Philkm wrote: »

Why?

I paid my solicitors to ensure I was 'safe' when spending a large amount of money.

The very least I should get is the assurance that I am buying what I thought I was.

You pay your solicitor to deal with the legal transfer of the property. You pay a surveyor to tell you if the property itself is safe.

zizu73

Would a home buyers survey had been enough in this case or only the building survey?

Philkm

G_M wrote: »

The faith you had was in your own ability to undertake the role of surveyor. As i said before 'mis-placed confidence'.

Looks self inflicted to me I'm afraid.

Apologies, i don't think i'm making my point very well. i didn't pay for a more in depth survey, therefore if someone tells me my roof is leaking and I need a new one I take it on the chin. If they tell me that i have dry rot I take it on the chin................but to be told I didn't even buy a house??????

Richard_Webster

Apologies, i don't think i'm making my point very well. i didn't pay for a more in depth survey, therefore if someone tells me my roof is leaking and I need a new one I take it on the chin. If they tell me that i have dry rot I take it on the chin................but to be told I didn't even buy a house??????

You bought some land with a building on it. I think that most people would say that a house (as opposed to a bungalow) is a building with more than one storey and that is what you bought. What you mean is that you didn't buy a house that had been properly constructed.

The point has already been made that surveyor will look at the building and the solicitor will look at the legal side of things.

If the sellers didn't say anything about any alterations/extensions, the estate agent's blurb did not recite that this was a "nicely extended bungalow" and because no permissions appear to have been obtained nothing showed on the searches, how on earth is the poor solicitor supposed to know?

The Land Registry don't care how many storeys a property has - all they care about is that a particular piece of land edged red on the title plan is held within particular title number. The position of buildings on the lands is not usually significant.