Making a complaint re Home Buyers Report

Soundgirlrocks

Hi all,

Has any one had a successful out come making a complaint about a home buyers report?

Bit of back ground, I had a home buyers report carried out on a leasehold flat with share of freehold. Survey was carried out Sept 2011, nothing to be concerned about so proceeded with purchase completed March 2012. At the first AGM of the residents association and I found out adjacent flat has serious problems with their bay window (2 story bay) and its leaking flat roof. It is agreed to get a survey to look at the bay. Jan 2013 survey is carried out and recommends immediate shoring up of the bay, as there is serious subsidence and a danger of collapse. The guttering is partial blamed as they don't discharge into the drains. Our buildings insurance won't cover the costs of repair as the say the movement predates the policy (we have been with the insurance company 2years) insurance company believe the movement has happened over a 50 year period.

The home buyers report gave both the guttering and the external walls their best rating, with no suggestion to carry out further investigation.

I'm hoping that the surveyor will cover my share of the repair bill (1/7) as the subsidence and guttering should have been noticed in the homebuyers report (before any one says its not a full structural report I know it's a visual inspection but both problems are clearly visible if you look). If they had been noted I would have got a more detailed report and certainly reduced my offer accordingly. I appreciate it is buyer beware but when you employ a professional you expect them to do the job you have paid them for.

G_M

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

googler

Soundgirlrocks wrote: »

...before any one says its not a full structural report I know it's a visual inspection but both problems are clearly visible if you look

Are you saying you expected the surveyor to look, but you didn't?

If the problems are 'clearly visible', why didn't you notice them?

Soundgirlrocks

I'm not a surveyor, I did notice some cracks around the bay window, but as the surveyor gave it his top rating I assumed they weren't a problem and not likley to cause a colapse. Equall I admit I didn't check each and every down pipe to see if it feed into the drains, (and in my ignorance didn't realise this could cause subsidence) but I did pay some to carry out these checks.

propertyman

The problem is the scope of the report, even a full survey is unlikely to have picked up the flat roof of a bay window as it would need to accessed by ladder. Gutter leaks from seams need to be visible with either daylight and or staining on the joint or surrounding surfaces.

Discharging on the ground is not actually a problem, its the dispersal of the water afterwards. If it ponds in one point then in an older property with relatively shallow foundations, problems can arise. Soil conditions also have to be considered.

Now the previous insurers can also be approached, and if the freehold is owned in a company the potential liability of the directors for failing to look after the property or when re insuring making an accurate proposal, not guessing " its looks ok".

Finally has anyone looked at the lease of the flat- often a bay window and flat roof can be the individual flat owners to repair, not the freeholders.

lemon26

If it's any use, be persistent with the surveyor and lay out clearly what you'd like doing in a recorded-delivery letter. I say this as I have recently had a bit of a battle with the surveyor who did our mortgage valuation in Nov 2006.

Basically, they correctly identified the year of build of the property and the previous owner (local authority) but neglected to mention it was a repaired pre-fab (i.e. under Defective Homes act).

Moving on, I came to sell it last year, got the Home Report done and this surveyor picked up on the pre-fab bit immediately. Suffice to say, there are no documents in exisitence proving the repairs to an acceptable level to lenders, so house was essentially unmortgageable and could only sell for cash - I only found out this when my purchaser had her mortgage offer withdrawn.

I then sold to her for cash and have pursued the surveyor for the difference between her initial offer assuming a mortgage and the cash purchasing offer. I had a nice letter with a cheque arrive over the weekend.

Stick with it, follow their complaints procedure before you go to RICS and good luck!

Soundgirlrocks

propertyman wrote: »

The problem is the scope of the report, even a full survey is unlikely to have picked up the flat roof of a bay window as it would need to accessed by ladder. Gutter leaks from seams need to be visible with either daylight and or staining on the joint or surrounding surfaces.

Discharging on the ground is not actually a problem, its the dispersal of the water afterwards. If it ponds in one point then in an older property with relatively shallow foundations, problems can arise. Soil conditions also have to be considered.

- Agree about the guttering I didn't realise it was a problem with the discharge until we had this survey, however the original survey didn't recommend any further inspection of them either. It is the subsidence that is more of the issue I think.

propertyman wrote: »

Now the previous insurers can also be approached, and if the freehold is owned in a company the potential liability of the directors for failing to look after the property or when re insuring making an accurate proposal, not guessing " its looks ok".

- Not sure if we have the paper work for the previous insurers a lot of this information was lost by the previous managing agents (another complicated saga we have been with the current agent for 2 years). One director resigned when I purchased the property (see previouse threads re lease extension)and is very frail, the other is incompetent but getting the other shareholders to accept this (no one want to be a director and they won't let me become one due to the ongoing lease issues)isn't going to happen. I guessing to go down that route I would need to sue the current director for failing in his duty?

propertyman wrote: »

Finally has anyone looked at the lease of the flat- often a bay window and flat roof can be the individual flat owners to repair, not the freeholders.

- Yes no mention in the lease that the flat roof is the responsibility of the leaseholder and the problem is caused by the bay itself collapsing the brick mullion of the flat below appears to bowing and is coming away from the window frame (its a two story bay)

I am really starting to wish I had never bought this flat.

propertyman

Well it looks like a problem where your FH company and interested parties agree to appoint an independent chartered surveyor, with if required engineer assistance, to establish what needs to be done, and to what extent each party should contribute.

It could eat up 10s of K£ in fees to litigate, so try mediation first or binding arbitration. Frankly you might find that you spend more in legal fees to get a solution than the entire cost of the works.

The burden on sorting it is on the FH company, even if they have to sue the lessee and the roof and you or others sue the company and the directors. Bear in mind that if the directors are shielded by the company, which as a first principle they are, then you risk losing your FH and FH company to insolvency.

In a similar situation I have sold freeholds to fund works with residents retaining management control.

Soundgirlrocks

propertyman wrote: »

It could eat up 10s of K£ in fees to litigate, so try mediation first or binding arbitration. Frankly you might find that you spend more in legal fees to get a solution than the entire cost of the works.

The burden on sorting it is on the FH company, even if they have to sue the lessee and the roof and you or others sue the company and the directors. Bear in mind that if the directors are shielded by the company, which as a first principle they are, then you risk losing your FH and FH company to insolvency.

- This would seam counter productive as I have a share in the freeholding company

propertyman wrote: »

In a similar situation I have sold freeholds to fund works with residents retaining management control.

How would this work? If it's as I think it may kill two birds with one stone. The other leaseholders would be reluctant to sell the freehold if they found they then had no control of the service charge, but if we could retain management rights then that issue would go away. Also they are reluctance to extend their leases most of which are around 75 years remaining which I guess would make the freehold more valuable? If we were to sell the freehold is there a way to prevent the very large garden being sold off for development?

propertyman

Counter-productive - yes that was my point . You would have to look for a clear course of action and the liquidity of the directors. It also makes people realise that they are damned either way- effectively suing themselves.

Ideally you would all agree to extend your leases and take the value out of the freehold, and put some back in by paying modern ground rents.

If you have 7 flats at say £250 per annum at 15/20 times thats into the 25/30k level, depending on the local market, and the risk of the works that are needed and how well and comprehensibly they are completed.

When you start the leaseholders exercise right to manage over the current FH company, timed on completion of the works,flog the freehold, and make the company dormant . In due course wind up that company, sooner if any warranties or guarantees for work can be assigned to the RTM.

cr1mson

Sorry am confused if the problem originated in adjacent flat surely that would be outwith scope of your survey?