Thank you, problem now sorted - Incorrect purchase survey, now selling

lemon26

Good evening! I would like to try to find out if I would have a case against the surveyor who did the survey when I bought my other house, in 2006, which I am now hoping to sell.

When I bought the house the (recommended, local) surveyor said it was of 'standard' construction and didn't make any other observations concerning the coustruction of the house anywhere in the survey - of which I have a copy in my possession.

Fast forwards to 2011/12, when I am now trying to sell, as I lost the job I had (military) and had to take a large paycut and move elsewhere for work. Now the Home Report (house is in Scotland) comes back from a different local surveyor that the house is a repaired PRC property and a) isn't worth as much as a house of standard construction and b) will be (and is proving to be) extremely difficult to sell.

Do I have a case for negligence against the original surveyor as both are chartered surveyors, both are local, neither are (or were) new to the area and there are many of these repaired, ex-local authority PRC properties in the town I lived in.

I have another thread on here concerning the difficulties I am having selling but, basically, no high-street lender will lend against these properties, only specialists (with corresponding high rates of interest). Also, my current lender has refused to switch to a BTL mortgage so I can't rent it. I can't afford a specialist-PRC BTL mortgage due to the re-mortgage cost and many won't lend to me because I have two mortgages, both being comfortably paid, while on what they see is a low wage.

What can I do? Can't rent, can't sell, must continue to insure and pay council tax on the empty house - why should the surveyor not be held responsible for his mistake???

Thanks for reading, I'm so frustrated, furious and getting towards giving up hope.

Thrugelmir

Your surveyor cannot be held responsible for a change of attitude by your lender some 6 years later nor that your property is difficult to sell. Every property will sell at the right price.

G_M

Have you spoken to either of the surveyors?

I suggest that is your first step.

lemon26

Thrugelmir - I am not in anyway attempting to hold either surveyor responsible for the mess that lending finds itself in now. I am, however, trying to hold the original surveyor to account for incorrectly stating the nature of the construction of my property when he carried out the original, purchase survey. This is what is causing the big ramification now and, having spoken to the lender who I originally took the loan out against the property, they would not have lent against a repaired pre-reinforced concrete so I wouldn't have been in this mess had he done his job correctly. He is a professional, and certainly charged a lot, but delivered rubbish.

G_M - the current surveyor (correctly identified construction) has been going out of his way to assist, even pointing me in the direction of where I would get approved pland and completion certicicates for the PRC repairs but these are unacceptable to high-street lenders.The potential purchaser and I have been there - luckily she is still interested, but rapidly getting disheartened.

The original surveyor's firm have suggested that he, or they, cannot be held responsible for his mistake as it was just that, a simple mistake - their words, not mine!

So they're denying they've dropped a big one where the plans very clearly show the construction of the properties and the local authority used to own, and repaired, a large amount of them in the local area. I mean, that's what you go to a local surveyor for, and usually pay more than an online outfit, for the benefit of their supposed local knowledge!

G_M

lemon26 wrote: »

G_M - the current surveyor (correctly identified construction) has been going out of his way to assist, even pointing me in the direction of where I would get approved pland and completion certicicates for the PRC repairs
Yes, but what does the current surveyor say when you show him the original report? Does he, as a professional, think the original surveyor has done anything unprofessional?

The original surveyor's firm have suggested that he, or they, cannot be held responsible for his mistake as it was just that, a simple mistake - their words, not mine!
I guess this was inevitable - they are unlikely to freely admit an error.

Have you communicated by phone? email? or in writing? I would now WRITE to the firm with a formal complaint (maybe see what current surveyor says first...). If it's a one-man band, write to the surveyor. If it's a firm, write to the MD/Senior Partner (check their website for any complaints procedure).

Is the firm/surveyor a member if RICS? More here:

http://www.rics.org/uk/regulation/complaints/

Furts

Hello - just observations
I am amazed both you and the surveyor did not appreciate a repaired house. That said, if all the houses in that area are of that construction it could be deemed standard construction. Hence an accurate definition of standard construction is relevant here.

If the surveyors have admitted a mistake and you have that in writing, or witnesses, or recorded telephone call ...then you can take action against them. But negotiation would be a first move. By this stage it would probably be under their PI insurance (if they have any)

Action would be against their PI insurance and would be contested- so not an easy route to go down

real1314

Furts wrote: »

Hello - just observations
I am amazed both you and the surveyor did not appreciate a repaired house. That said, if all the houses in that area are of that construction it could be deemed standard construction. Hence an accurate definition of standard construction is relevant here.

That is not what a layperson/member of the public would expect "standard construction" to mean. They would expect it to mean that the method of construction is such that there would not be any lending / sale issues related to the method of construction.

If you went to a cardboard city squatter camp, would you describe a cardboard box as "standard construction"? :cool:

ClootiesMum

I'm not an expert in this but I do live in a Dorran house (pre-fab concrete). Our house has had remedial work done on it & documentation confirms this.
House was valued at same as "normal" build houses & we had made the surveyor aware of the build type and we got a mortgage through a high street bank. We were up front with the build type so that there would be no comeback.
So if "Repaired PRC" means the remedial work has been done on the house then things might not be as gloomy as you think.

Furts

Real 1314 I agree with you...but once a legal argument starts the layperson definition is not applicable. What counts is the legally defined definition/ contract terms/ policy definition... you get my drift. Hence I am saying establish the accepted "legal" definition of standard construction.

Thrugelmir

Furts wrote: »

Hence I am saying establish the accepted "legal" definition of standard construction.

Brick and tile?

Presumably the PRC repair was undertaken with either brick or blockwork. So therefore conformed with the lenders requirements at the time of the valuation.

Furts

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Brick and tile?

Presumably the PRC repair was undertaken with either brick or blockwork. So therefore conformed with the lenders requirements at the time of the valuation.

This is true up to a point. We do not know if bricks are present. PRC houses can be repaired without there being obvious visible signs, some are clad in brick, some are rendered....

Brick and tile ignores the technicality. If a PRC is clad in brick the load bearing PRC structure remains in place. Similarly on a newish house a brick cladding may hide a load bearing structure of concrete blocks, or aircrete or timber...