Gradual ongoing movement or dodgy conclusion

IThinkIHaveAProblem

We're in the process of part exchanging our 1891 stone built end terrace with a new build. A surveyor came out a couple of weeks ago and recommended a structural engineer give a full structural on the house because of our sagging roof and some possible movement. We only had a valuation done when we bought the place. It picked up on that the roof would need repair and that there was evidence of movement which was deemed to be historic and longstanding. The structural engineer has come along looked at the same cracks and decided that it could be gradual and ongoing! His main reason for this seems to be that we have extensively refurbished and that this MAY be masking signs of movement internally , there is also dusting on front garden wall close to where it meets the house which in his mind suggests repair to the masonry. It was but it was the masonry to the WALL which was repaired! There is also a diagonal crack at the top of the cellar stairs but this is to the original limestone plaster from when the house was first constructed. Should I be worried or is this just a case of him covering himself? Anyone else had a structural report come back with anything similar?

benood

Why don't you refer them back to the report you had saying it was historic and longstanding.

IThinkIHaveAProblem

benood wrote: »

Why don't you refer them back to the report you had saying it was historic and longstanding.

Cheers, going to do that tomorrow along with some other comments. It just seems really wrong that we've got this hanging over our heads just because we've refurbed the place inside and he thinks we've done a cover up job! None of the external cracking is below first floor height. He's also noted some roof spread caused by incorrectly sized purlins - not to bothered about this as it can be made good. I'm not a professional but surely the cracking is more likely to have been caused by the roof. Just noticed - the report says the exact age of the house could not be determined and it was circa 1875. Even though there is a 12"x12" stone on the front of the house saying A.D 1891. There is also a picture of this stone in the report. Not a lot got past this guy eh!

Doozergirl

A report by a structural engineer is going to have a lot more sway than a twenty minute whip-round by a valuer who isn't qualified.

The engineer may well have drawn some wrong conclusions, but I doubt very much that your new build developer will be swayed on this one

IThinkIHaveAProblem

Doozergirl wrote: »

A report by a structural engineer is going to have a lot more sway than a twenty minute whip-round by a valuer who isn't qualified.

The engineer may well have drawn some wrong conclusions, but I doubt very much that your new build developer will be swayed on this one

I agree with what you're saying about the structural engineer. But the sales director at the new build reassured me that as far as they were concerned they were still going ahead with things. The report is going back to the original surveyor for his comments and to see if he thinks the house is mortgageable. He actually downplayed some of the things the engineer put in the report such as sloping in some of the floors. Sounds like they may pay for the foundation reports if need be. They must want to get rid of the plots...