No survey

LittleMissKitty

phill99 wrote: »

This is a brilliant forum: people can comment on any subject that they know absolutely nothing about and the OP takes it as gospel. Marvellous. Its the virtual equivilant of "A bloke down the pub told me...."

This is what happens with a valuation for mortgage:

The valuer (normally a member of the RICS) will attend. He has a duty of care to the lender and you as the borrower. His task is to ensure that thte property is worth the money being borrowed against it so that in the event of a 'forced sale' (ie it's repossessed) the lender (bank / BS) will get their money back.

Because of that he has to ensure that the property is basically in a sound state of repair bacause any major defects will affect the property's value. This includes things such as obvious roof defects, subsidence and damp.

He DOES NOT do a drive by valuation. He has a duty to actually inspect the property. This will include taking damp readings etc.

So your friend can rest assured that if there are any major defects, these will have been picked up and she wouldhave been advised of such.

Guys: if you don't actually know the answer to somebody's post, then don't comment. All you do is send people up the the wrong path and create unnecessary distress.

Fantastic information apart from one thing: what a valuation SHOULD be and what a valuation OFTEN IS are not the same thing. Of the two properties I've sold, neither have had valuers visit to check anything (and yes, both were bought with standard, high street mortgages). It's only personal experience but I doubt, very much, that I'm the only person who's had that experience.

princeofpounds

He DOES NOT do a drive by valuation. He has a duty to actually inspect the property. This will include taking damp readings etc.

Mortgage valuer never visited the property I bought. Thankfull my own surveyor did.

cattie

On a property of only 11yrs old, I'd be more than OK with just the valuation survey. It's very unlikely that a relatively new property would have damp issues that were not immediately visible. Same with any structural issues, usually there are cracks or evidence of cracks, when the structure has shifted.

Normally if a property is up to 20yrs old and appears in excellent & well maintained condition, I'm happy to go with the valuation survey. Anything over that up to 70yrs old, again if it looks in good condition, I'll tend to go with a homebuyers survey & over & above 70yrs I choose the full structural. Thankfully, this has always worked for me whenever I have been buying a property.

Millie_Millsters

cattie wrote: »

On a property of only 11yrs old, I'd be more than OK with just the valuation survey. It's very unlikely that a relatively new property would have damp issues that were not immediately visible. Same with any structural issues, usually there are cracks or evidence of cracks, when the structure has shifted.

I'm glad it's not just me! I bought a house (mortgage free) last year and didn't have any kind of survey except what I saw with my own eyes.

geoffky

We bought for cash march 2010 and i spent £500 for a private survey as the piece of mind i got from it was priceless and if anything major popped up i had some recourse even if the surveyor put little get outs in his report .
It is just financial suicide to take such a big risk for such a small amount of money.
House was only 12yrs old

phill99

InMyDreams wrote: »

Which is exactly what the forum is and should be. (If people want professional advice on which to act, then it needs to be paid for through proper means.) But do I detect disapproval in your sarcasm?

I don't think the OP was necessarily taking anything as 'gospel' just being politely gracious (as one would hope) and asking more questions. Which is what these forums are all about!

The issue is simple: people come on here for advice. That isn't a problem at all. But it becomes a problem when people who clearly know nothing about a subject decide to make a comment. As a minimum that approach can be irrititating and at the most can be simply dangerous. Particularly when there are conflicting views. A lot of the time the views are simply based on *my mate said" or "I think you can't do that" or "I reckon". The OP can get those kind of answers from the bloke at the bus stop, the woman in the butchers or awhole gaggle of numpyts down the pub on a Friday night.

I know a lot about a number of subjects. But there are many subjects to which I know absolutely nothing. To the things that I know the answer I will be plased to share my advice, suggestion on information. On the subjects which I know nothing, I will say nothing. Nor will I give you random mis- informed, mis-guided, or irrelevant advice on the subject which is the last thing somebody needs when they are seeking advice or information.

Yes you are right, there is disapproval in my sarcasm and rightly so.

phill99

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not to the borrower on a straight valuation. The surveyor is employed by the bank.

You are wrong. See Smith v Bush [1987] 3 WLR 889. This is now a tenet in all mortgage valuations, even when the bank employs the valuer. It's not based on the contractural position, but that of negligence.

phill99

timmyt wrote: »

Phil is not right above.

The lenders valuation is a privste one for the bank, very very basic so do your own survey when you buy and before exchange.

I refer you to post #19. Look the law up for yourself. Any surveyor, valuer or lawyer on this forum will tell you exactly the same.