Who is to blame? Me/Surveyor/Solicitor

slummymummyof3

I also agree with several posters who say about the estate agents and the vendors - they have a responsibility! We have sold extended properties and have had to show the estate agents proof of planning permission, building regs and even that we had bought out of a restrictive covenant in order for our property to be marketed as extended and to have those rooms listed on the property details. Sellers have to complete a form where they have to declare any alterations.

JQ.

Philkm wrote: »

Sorry JQ, I don't understand. It has to be worth less doesn't it? Also, I'm not looking to sell but to get the work done so the cost will be in that rather than a drop in sell on value.

No it doesn't. It has a value as a converted bungalow, even a bodged one. It may have been worth alot more if the work had complied with building regs and you just got a bargain. It may be that the original surveyor took the poor work into account when valuing.

As stated above you can only claim for the lower of 1. Your loss at the time or 2. the cost of repairing the issue.

If there was no loss you have no claim. The first thing you need to do is assess if you paid too much at the time bearing in mind what you know now. Only then is there any point paying for a solicitor to check whether you can actually claim against the original survey, which as lots of people have said may prove quite difficult.

As you've already had a surveyor round, they'd be the first person I'd be speaking to, as long as they're experienced in valuing property. Getting bad advice at the start could end up costing you alot of cash in the long run.

Good luck

Philkm

jenny74 wrote: »

It was me that asked these questions, and offered (misplaced?) sympathies.... My post was completely ignored by OP.

Jenny, apologies, I thought i'd sent you a Pm with the answer and the link to a photo of the house so you could understand. (as a new user I can't post the link on here)

Philkm

milliebear00001 wrote: »

It sounds as though the changes were made several sellers back, so the previous sellers may not have known about the alterations in order to declare them.

Definitely worth going through all the paperwork with a fine toothcomb though.

Yes, it was several sellers back that the alterations were made. The people we bought off are now living in New Zealand which would make that channel difficult anyway. They have signed the box on the sheet saying no alterations made as have the people before them.......if the solicitor did have the one relating to the guy who made the alterations does that make any difference?

Philkm

not_loaded wrote: »

I was under the impression you didn’t pay for a full survey. Did you or didn’t you?

I paid for the valuation survey ( see previous input re legal precedents around 'little people' trusting these.)

Philkm

JQ. wrote: »

No it doesn't. It has a value as a converted bungalow, even a bodged one. It may have been worth alot more if the work had complied with building regs and you just got a bargain. It may be that the original surveyor took the poor work into account when valuing.

As stated above you can only claim for the lower of 1. Your loss at the time or 2. the cost of repairing the issue.

If there was no loss you have no claim. The first thing you need to do is assess if you paid too much at the time bearing in mind what you know now. Only then is there any point paying for a solicitor to check whether you can actually claim against the original survey, which as lots of people have said may prove quite difficult.

As you've already had a surveyor round, they'd be the first person I'd be speaking to, as long as they're experienced in valuing property. Getting bad advice at the start could end up costing you alot of cash in the long run.

Good luck

The price I paid was 'the right price' for a 4 bed house in this area at the time - I am fully confident of that. I will though get it valued as you say.

I am awaiting the written report of the surveyor who came the other day - he was a building surveyor but not in this part of the industry i.e. not in the valuing business.

jenny74

Philkm wrote: »

Jenny, apologies, I thought i'd sent you a Pm with the answer and the link to a photo of the house so you could understand. (as a new user I can't post the link on here)

Ah, I will check my PMs later, I am using my my mobile phone and can't seem to get to my PMs using it. :-)



.

slummymummyof3

I would also point out in any written communication that you are a lay person and as such are reliant on correct information being provided by professionals such as a surveyor. It must be a fantastically built and designed extension if there are no outward or inward obvious signs of an extension.

jenny74

Hi, hopefully this link from Philkm will work:

House pic

At a first glance the upstairs window doesn't look too out of place - in nthe respect that it lines up with the house it adjoins to.

But on further inspection, the downstairs windows don't link up with the next door house, which makes the upstairs and downstairs windows closer together, and out of sorts, IYSWIM? The house IMHO looks odd... it's just doesn't look right.

What do others think?

Jenny

JQ.

I agree it does'nt look too odd, until you realise the houses are on a slope & the OP's house is higher than the other, in which case it looks far more obvious. I guess it depends what it's like on the inside. It will also depend on what the building regs were like in the 1970's, when the house was presumably built. Would such upstairs rooms have been legal back then and so would it be reasonable to expect bedrooms up there. Or would they have been against building regs back then, in which case the surveyor should have picked up the issue.

I don't know the answers to any of the above, but they are questions the OP needs to ask when the Surveyor/Valuer inspects.