Who is to blame? Me/Surveyor/Solicitor

marmitequeen

I assume you've been happy with the house until this new surveyor told you it wasn't what you thought it was? A couple of questions:
1. Does this new chap know what he's talking about? Why take one person's opinion over everything you believed prior to his visit?
2. Why did you call him in originally? Were you concerned?

You clearly had a really bad day yesterday - hopefully today will be better for you. Assuming the conversion is ok (just no regs) would you still have bought the property if it had a different identity? ('converted bungalow' rather than 'house'?) You can call it what you like!

Here's to a better day today
x

Philkm

In answer to your questions:

We were happy with the property, the location is great, really quiet. We always would have liked more space upstairs as it has restricted head height and when we could afford we were going to look into roof changes/extensions. As I was thinking about this the neighbours had told me the history and I tried to get copies of the original/modified plans from the council only to find the didn't have any. This set alarm bells ringing so I went to look at the sub floor myself and was not happy with what I saw.

The surveyor I got round was a guy who my dad worked with and speaks highly of - he came yesterday as a favour and confirmed what I thought but also stated that it was obvious that it had been converted as the restricted head height would not have been allowed when the house was built whereas nowadays in theory you could have a 2 foot high ceiling as there was no legislation around it.

I am now probably looking at having to do the extension rather than being able to do it when I could afford it. The costs will also be higher as they will have to correct this part of the house now too.

If someone else was funding this work it would obviously be better for me.

lavandergirl_2

Surveyors employed by bank/building societies have duty of care to purchasers of property (as per Smith v Bush ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v_Eric_S_Bush

What does your valuation survey say?
What loss have you incurred? Is it an actual loss or just an expectation that the house should have been built as a 4bed instead of a bungalow?



That is why a Homebuyer Survey and Valuation is the one recommended by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. House purchase is the biggest purchase one will make in life and scrimping for a valuation survey to 'save' money is not always economically sound.

Philkm

lavandergirl wrote: »

What does your valuation survey say?
What loss have you incurred? Is it an actual loss or just an expectation that the house should have been built as a 4bed instead of a bungalow?

Hi, the valuation survey says (in a tick box format) that it was built in 1970, was purpose built, not converted, has 2 habitable floors, 4 bedrooms etc.

I haven't incurred any loss at this time. however my options are:

1. Sell the house, dont tell anyone.........until the next person kid falls through the floor or they sue me for not telling them (Couldn't live with myself if did this)

2. Live with it and hope it doesn't give way (its lasted for probably 15 years) and deal with it in however many years it is when I can afford to do it.

3. Action the improvements to the floor. At best we can drop in steel or similar from above meaning only the upstairs is unhabitiable while were doing it, lots of cost and lots of disruption. At worst i need deeper joists in which will make the upstairs unusable due to lack of headroom. In this scenario I would have to add a dormer which I don't know if it would be approved as the next house looks towards my roof ( strange layout). Also I can't afford to do this at present without adding to mortgage.

Leaseholder49

Philkm wrote: »

Hi, the valuation survey says (in a tick box format) that it was built in 1970, was purpose built, not converted...

I have absolutely no legal knowledge whatsoever, but surely if you have a survey (of whatever kind) which explicitly states that the property has not been converted, when in fact it has been substantially converted, something that is not your fault has gone wrong here?

Or does 'converted' in this context just mean converted from a non-residential building, e.g. all those old mills and maltings they turn into flats?

GDB2222

Well, you would need expert evidence on this, but I would say that you have incurred a loss, as the house is worth less than you paid for it. If it says purpose built, not converted, that sounds completely wrong. I would find a litigating solicitor, not the chap who conveyed the property, and run this report past him. Mention the Smith v Bush case, to save him looking it up.

Philkm

Leaseholder49 wrote: »

I have absolutely no legal knowledge whatsoever, but surely if you have a survey (of whatever kind) which explicitly states that the property has not been converted, when in fact it has been substantially converted, something that is not your fault has gone wrong here?

ANYTHING else you buy has to be 'as described' but a house doesn't matter because it's not like it costs a lot anyway is it?:rotfl: (I refer to my previos analogy of a 4 slice toaster from Argos only having room for 2 slices of bread - i'd have a clear case there!!)

Richard_Webster

ANYTHING else you buy has to be 'as described' but a house doesn't matter because it's not like it costs a lot anyway is it? (I refer to my previos analogy of a 4 slice toaster from Argos only having room for 2 slices of bread - i'd have a clear case there!!)

I don't think this is a fair analogy. It is a house, just a badly built one.

Or think of it another way - if it was a period dwelling built single storey in 1600 and extended on top in 1700, would any fair minded person say it wasn't a house but a converted bungalow? Such a property would probably be horrendously substandard by modern standards, but would attract a high price because it would probably be listed!

Your complaint is that you have a fairly modern house constructed/extended in a substandard way which will put potential buyers off.

Philkm

My complaint is that I thought I had paid professional people to ensure I was buying what I thought I was buying.

Leaseholder49

I think you're getting too hung up on what the property is called. You could patently see that it was a 4-bed property, be that a 'proper' house, or a converted bungalow. You didn't need to pay a professional to tell you that.

What you paid (or didn't pay) for is to check that the property is of sound (and possibly 'legal') construction.

I think you need to focus on whether the fact that the survey you did have done states that the property was not converted was negligent in some way, ie. had you known it was converted, you would have undertaken further structural surveys which would have led to you not purchasing/revising the purchase price.

I can't really see any other avenue that would be worth pursuing, but as I say, I have no legal knowledge, that's just my layman's take.