Has E.Surv survey failed to identify problem?

RubbleAndSoil

I am seeking any advice regarding the latest and biggest issue on a property I purchased 12 months ago.
I purchased a 1970's bungalow and had a full structural survey conducted by E.Surv prior to purchase.
On arrival the surveyor enquired why I had requested a full survey on a 1970's property and I advised that we has identified 2 areas of concern;
1). Crack to the exterior in line with extension and wanted advice whether this was superficial (render) or whether it may have extended into the internal wall (cavity wall with wood clad on interior)
2). Room in rear of property has some give in flooring with visible signs of damp on wood clad (decolourisation and mould).
There were no significant issues identified in the report however, we were advised re pitched fibre waste pipes and recommended CCTV for further inspection.
We have spent 12 months overhauling the property (built AND decorated in 1970's), installing 2 new bathrooms etc, working our way to the rear of the property. Issues so far have included insufficient overlap of roof tiles resulted in water leaking in and through the electrics resulting in half of one side of the roof requiring replacing.
We have now removed 70 feet of floorboards from rooms in the rear of the property to discover the main floor joist (bolted to rear wall) is rotten and does not exist in places and subsquently the perpendicular joists have rotted and all require replacing (approximately 1,200 sq ft). In addition, we have discovered some kind person(!) has placed temporary stilts balanced on bricks to support the floor joists where there is no contact with the joist bolted to the wall.
We have had to move the furniture etc from 3 rooms in the rear of the property until safety is assessed.
The query is, should a full structural survey have identified the problem or potential problem and advised for the need of further investigation given the visible signs and the concerns highlighted?

Furts

Before looking at the issues, what did your contract with the surveyor stipulate and what caveats or exclusions did he apply?

Was it possible he was not responsible for removing roof tiles (think safety and access), nor removing plaster to inspect walls, nor getting into floor voids to review joists etc.

RubbleAndSoil

Thank you for responding to my query.
The T&Cs for the survey are 4 pages and unfortunately I can not attach them here.
My expectation was, as per the waste drainage, that potential structural defects would be identified through visible indicators and recommendations on what investigative methods could be undertaken to make full conclusions.
I completely take on board your points re responsibility to remove tiles, plaster etc and that would not have been my expectation.

propertyman

A chartered surveyor receives 3 to 5 years formal education and training with on average 2 years of post graduation assessment before qualification.

At no stage is X ray vision issued .:mad:

Clearly the former owner went to great lengths to repair the immediate problems, quite possible to disguise any sign that there may be a hidden defect.

Rather than sue the Surveyor, they might be better employed diagnosing what and when the works were done so that you can sue the real perpetrator - the Vendor that failed to declare this rotten beam.

teneighty

At no stage is X ray vision issued

Come on, if there was excessive deflection in the floor it should have started ringing alarm bells in even the most incompetent surveyor/valuer's brain.

Fair enough they would not have lifted fitted carpets and secured floorboards but they should have flagged it up with the client that it needed further investigation.

My expectation was, as per the waste drainage, that potential structural defects would be identified through visible indicators and recommendations on what investigative methods could be undertaken to make full conclusions.

That is exactly what should have happened.

How did they miss the water penetration due to inadequate roof tile laps?

Sounds to me like you have a good case against the surveyor/valuer. Contact them and see what they say but be prepared for a battle. I suspect it will require a formal complaint and ultimately a claim on their professional indemnity insurance.

phoebe1989seb

Our personal experience with esurv was not good - and I have read further unfavourable reports about their surveyors across the forum - but from a seller's perspective. The surveyor sent to carry out the Homebuyer's Report for our buyers in 2011 managed to identify problems that didn't exist whilst overlooking things that did, despite spending around three and a half hours scrutinising our house.

Fortunately our buyers could see his obvious errors for themselves - no woodworm infestation as only three (treated) holes were evident, no asbestos water cylinder, evidence of recent re-pointing etc etc. To sum up, he seemed totally inept. Were I the OP I would definitely be looking to make a formal complaint against the surveyor in question......

Furts

phoebe1989seb wrote: »

Our personal experience with esurv was not good - and I have read further unfavourable reports about their surveyors across the forum - but from a seller's perspective. The surveyor sent to carry out the Homebuyer's Report for our buyers in 2011 managed to identify problems that didn't exist whilst overlooking things that did, despite spending around three and a half hours scrutinising our house.

Fortunately our buyers could see his obvious errors for themselves - no woodworm infestation as only three (treated) holes were evident, no asbestos water cylinder, evidence of recent re-pointing etc etc. To sum up, he seemed totally inept. Were I the OP I would definitely be looking to make a formal complaint against the surveyor in question......

Hi RubbleAndSoil

Proceed with caution. Could the tile headlap be observed from the ground - do you have verges where it can be seen, or were these OK? Were the headlaps in hidden areas?

Does anybody have the fixing requirements from the 1970's? Do you have the tile manufacturers name and recommendations? Can you show proof the headlap was not correct?

Just taking an example...but disputes are often not clear cut. Certainly, I would expect an enormous battle if you tried the idemnity route.

RubbleAndSoil

propertyman wrote: »

A chartered surveyor receives 3 to 5 years formal education and training with on average 2 years of post graduation assessment before qualification.

At no stage is X ray vision issued .:mad:

Clearly the former owner went to great lengths to repair the immediate problems, quite possible to disguise any sign that there may be a hidden defect.

Rather than sue the Surveyor, they might be better employed diagnosing what and when the works were done so that you can sue the real perpetrator - the Vendor that failed to declare this rotten beam.

Firstly, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to reply to my post.

To clarify, at no point during my query did I question the education or post-academic experience required to become a qualified surveyor or hold an unreasonable expectation that they are supplied with superhero powers upon qualification. Neither was my query focussed on alternative or parallel process' such as a claim against the vendor re failure to declare significant repair work undertaken.

My query focussed on one aspect; it is reasonable to expect a surveyor undertaking a full structural survey to conclude that further investigation work would be required given the visible signs (defined as visible to the average human naked eye) relating to the issues that were identified in my original post.

propertyman

teneighty wrote: »

Come on, if there was excessive deflection in the floor it should have started ringing alarm bells in even the most incompetent surveyor/valuer's brain.

I say in reply "you come on", Nowhere in the post has the OP mentioned that there was visible signs of deflection or distortion, or undue flexibility, or visible signs of altered or uneven skirting trim or doors.

The OP has posted that the floor had been opened up and propped up -in the absence on the above - you can't see what you can't see, nor suspect if there are no clues.

To say " it should have happened" is a ridiculous expectation the survey has limitations- vendors won't allow you to take apart the whole building- which is the only way to say for sure.

Reinforcing that expectation may make you feel better but, bluntly, I am trying to suggest what he can do to solve the problem.

Unless the OP cares to add something the poor OP has been had by a clever vendor

propertyman

No, because in your original post you

1: Listed defects and issues

2: You didn't identity the clues that you expected him to follow

Unless as in my post above you had the clues as to the floor having a defect, how would you expect him to see the shoring up under the floor?

When you say insufficient overlap that could be a number of things- did he have access to under the tiles, were the tiles lined underneath, were there signs of water penetration on the joists, are the wall tiles on the exterior?

Just because a company who employs hundreds of surveyors doing 10's of K surveys a week, made a mistake for phoebe, it means they mut have made a mistake with you too.. right?

Otherwise the post is just an assertion, it needs context and substantiation. I am trying to help and make your expectations realistic and perhaps lead to targeting a vendor who covered something up, or if you provide context a surveyor who screwed up.

Surveyor bashing is a popular sport here, but it rarely addresses the issue, at best it provides some support, but often it's just wallowing in the discomfort and problems of others.

propertyman

One of the drawbacks of the conveyor belt conveyancer or surveying firms is that they deal in a high volume of work under pressure, and never quite know what they are going to find in a way of a property and problems. That makes it hard to keep to timelines and properly reflect, and rely too much on standard phrasing and cut and paste.

Moreover despite the qualification and training there is no substitute for experience and specialism and local knowledge. too often these firms take on surveyors who will only be there for year or so and move on and dont have the experience that it takes time to acquire, no to draw on.

While they would never admit it they take the odd hit in return for the volume of turnover.

Unless you are buying a modern box, instruct a local firm of Chartered Surveyors.