Can a flawed survey on your house be overturned? Help hugely appreciated.

CBR600F_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

OP is the seller not the buyer.

Groovy. What about if he were the buyer?

holly_hobby

CBR600F wrote: »

Can you renegotiate your offer based on the findings in the valuation then? I assumed the original accpeted offer was binding.

Unfortunately, re-negotation between the OP and buyer is futile (unless they choose to buy incash and accept the OPs evidence re flooding).

As the surveyor has given a daming report in stating that he deems the property uninsurable - whilst the condtion of any mortgage, is for the mortgagors to retain buildings insurance for the duration of the mortgage term.

Which unfortunately means ... no buildings insurance .. no mortgage ...

Hope this helps

Holly

DVardysShadow

I am thinking that if the surveyor was negligent, the seller may have some legal claim against the surveyor. This will probably have a fairly high hurdle for legal proof in terms of evidence and in terms of this being a severe factual error rather than just a difference of professional opinion.

This might bring some damages to OP, but will not be sufficient to help the present buyer or to force Santander to reconsider their decision not to lend.

JQ.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I am thinking that if the surveyor was negligent, the seller may have some legal claim against the surveyor. This will probably have a fairly high hurdle for legal proof in terms of evidence and in terms of this being a severe factual error rather than just a difference of professional opinion.

This might bring some damages to OP, but will not be sufficient to help the present buyer or to force Santander to reconsider their decision not to lend.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Seriously people. The surveyor is acting for the bank lending the money to the borrower. The OP is the vendor. What you're suggesting is essentially that the Vendor can force the bank to lend money to the buyer and by not doing so the vendor can sue.

There is absolutely no contractual relationship between the surveyor and the OP and no they can't sue. There isn't even a contract between the OP and the buyer yet.

Yorkie1

That's not what DVS was saying at all. He was saying that the OP might have a claim for losses against the surveyor if negligence & loss can be proved. He wasn't saying that the OP could take out judicial mandamus proceedings against the lender.

bigadaj

I know there is no direct link between the vendor and the surveyor but I wonder if there would be the potential for a contractual claim for loss if the rights of third parties act hadn't been specifically excluded from the contract?

Maybe tenuous but worth a thought and would depend on the surveyors standard terms and conditions.

Thrugelmir

hankowsky wrote: »

However Santander has declined our buyers their mortgage (in their case: a mortgage extension, I believe) on the basis of this report.

How do you know this? Have you been given a copy of the report?

PS. You don't have to live on a flood plain to suffer from flooding.

DVardysShadow

JQ. wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Seriously people. The surveyor is acting for the bank lending the money to the borrower. The OP is the vendor. What you're suggesting is essentially that the Vendor can force the bank to lend money to the buyer and by not doing so the vendor can sue.

There is absolutely no contractual relationship between the surveyor and the OP and no they can't sue. There isn't even a contract between the OP and the buyer yet.

No., I am not suggesting that the vendor can force the bank to lend money. You actually quote me saying

DVardysShadow wrote: »

.... This might bring some damages to OP, but will not be sufficient to help the present buyer or to force Santander to reconsider their decision not to lend.

So I think you are up a gumtree with what you write.

I am suggesting that if the surveyor has made demonstrably false statements, with some degree of negligence, the vendor may have cause for action effectively for devaluing the vendor's assets.

If we are now giving out rofls take these
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
for your demonstrably ludicrous notion that to sue you need a contractual relationship in place with the defendant.

Certainly in US law, there is a concept of Slander of Title, which would cover this sort of situation. What the equivalent is in UK Law, I am not sure. But good old slander and libel are good enough approximations which would cover a wrong survey report at some level of misrepresentation - there may be more effective ways of making this particular case.

Senior_Paper_Monitor

The OP refers to 'leakage' - is this the new word for flooding ?

Flood risk is about to become the next 'big issue' in the market in my view. I understand that new maps were distributed by the environment agency a few weeks ago.

Additionally there is an ongoing debate between insurers and government as to long term liability cover for this problem.

We have certainly noticed in the last few weeks a considerable increase in cover rejections based on postcode which seem somewhat neurotic - I would not be surpised to see the same reflect in surveys and lending (I recall we recently had a lender request a flood report well after survey - indeed on the point of offer, which had been well delayed pending a client's new contract).

Santander/Abbey are not well known for being receptive to appeals of any sort - but if you can proove you are outside the flood risk area (this does not mean flood plain - I have a couple of recent cases where drainage ditches have been the core problem) - google environmental agency - and your purchaser is ready to take up the fight (aided by your past inurance/survey/repair docs) an appeal may be possible - but by no means guaranteed.

Thrugelmir

Senior_Paper_Monitor wrote: »

The OP refers to 'leakage' - is this the new word for flooding ?

Depends how leakage is caused maybe. Poor shared drainage perhaps.

OP made reference to flood plain. So suggests not internal issue.