A leak from somewhere in the roof it seems.

Dan-Dan

fiesta04 wrote: »

I amazed that the OP and others do not pay out the extra £250 approx. and have a Full Structural Survey carried out.


Buying a house is the most expensive purchase you make and for the sake of £250, to "find out loads" hence possible problems, to me appears silly. If for example, the house costs £150K, what difference does a piddly £250 make. It may have picked up these problems along with others and therefore giving room for lower price or possible non purchase.


Only time will tell.


F4

Is there any point to your contributions on this thread?

fiesta04

Yes and No.


Yes- To make others aware of the danger to not having as much information about the property, as it really important especially if You know nothing about a house.


No- Too late now for OP.


I'm out of here


F4

Dan-Dan

Thats obvious , but the thread is asking for help about his roof , not belated `good` advice

JustAnotherSaver

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

Where the red dot is there is obviously a valley formed by the 3 roofs that slope to this point. I would expect at this point a lead slate under the roof slates with an outlet dropping to the hopper visible below. I would put money on the slate having split or not being properly tucked up under the roof slates.

PS the cost of the repair should be a 50/50 split with your neighbour as this is a shared RWP/outlet

Interesting.
* What is a lead slate? Is it just flashing or is it a 'slate' (same dimensions) that is basically just made of lead?
* I've no idea how old this roof is, so i would therefore assume original 1935. Would this have still been installed back then?
* What's RWP?
* As said, the neighbours are selling. I suppose we'd have to sit tight for new owners & discuss with them. Though i suspect they would see our keenness to get it sorted & just say they're not bothered & call our bluff.
* If there is slate that is smack on the dividing line which are the problem, then are we legally allowed to get this rectified? As it would also be part owned by the neighbour too, so are we allowed to touch it without their say so?

Dan-Dan wrote: »

Is there any point to your contributions on this thread?

Don't worry about it. I've been delving through told you so's on threads for long enough now.

We were advised to go for a middle of the road survey, since the more expensive one was more than just a couple £100 extra & there didn't appear anything major with the house. This issue only came to light once the wallpaper was taken off. Before that it just looked like a small damp problem.

tony6403

A few comments
- never heard of a lead slate . I imagine that reference is being made to a lead soaker which is flashing bent to form a barrier to water where the slates do not overlap. However I can see why you might call it a lead slate.
- the idea that the hopper could overflow into the loft space is hard to fathom ; the hopper is below that level.
- I would not assume that your neighbour has any responsibility before getting the roof checked out ; if the problem is caused by defects on your side then it's down to you regardless of the shared RWP (or downwater pipe).
- I wonder if the roof has a history of problems given the daubing which has been done ( i.e. the tile cement or whatever it is slapped on the underside of the tiles)
- fixing the leak will not be a major job as it's a small area.

anotherbaldrick

Never heard of a lead slate outlet ? look at http://www.obrienleadfab.co.uk/lead-roof-outlets.php

As the leak is on and above the party wall with the neighbour it is a raving certainty that the said other party has an involvement, and as mentioned the outlet and RWP serves both properties.

The pipe will not enter the roof space but drops to the hopper through the eaves behind the fascia board, it will be the flashing to this outlet around the slates that is letting rain soak the party wall behind. If the neighbour has a close investigation he will no doubt have same dampness his side.

JustAnotherSaver

Thing is, it must have been known about for some time, surely, by one or both owners & they've obviously made the decision to just live with it for whatever reason (effort, money, something else).

The house could sell tomorrow, equally it could sell next year. The sellers probably aren't interested in it because if their side is anything like ours then it wont be obvious until the paper comes off (plus ours had wardrobes against it so you couldn't see anyway).

So i guess we've no choice to just go ahead & pay up, in full.

Tucker

Dan-Dan wrote: »

Is there any point to your contributions on this thread?

I think he highlights very nicely the benefits of paying for a full structural survey given the OP didn't and I suspect he and his wife have stressed over this and will have to pay to correct it and would now accept the 'cheap' survey option was a poor choice....? Would they do the same again if they could turn back the clock??

It might not help them directly but it's a lesson learned if they move again or for others reading this and contemplating the cheap option because 'the house looks good'!

Why the need to make an issue of someone making a valid post?? A bit pathetic really.

JustAnotherSaver

Tucker wrote: »

Would they do the same again if they could turn back the clock??

Yes we would.

A structural survey cost much more. We were advised to go for a homebuyers survey. We weren't equipped with a crystal ball & the house appeared in good nick. For an 80 yr old house i guess it still is. A structural survey wouldn't sort the problem anyway.

I don't know the full ins & outs, but would a structural survey have made them remove the wardrobes, peel off the wallpaper? If not then this big water stain would never have been spotted, even with a structural survey.

if they move again

Unless we get horror neighbours forcing us, then we wont be.
I know, i know, i've heard it before .... "you say that now". Well of course i say it now, i can't say it in the future. I also say nobody here knows me, so they don't know that i don't like change. If i wanted to buy a house that i only wanted to keep for a year or two then i'd have bought a little scrat box in a poor area. I've bought this one in the area it's in because i don't intend to move from it until i go out of this place in a box.

Why the need to make an issue of someone making a valid post?? A bit pathetic really.

Not really.

It's like someone saying, i've deleted all the files on my PC by mistake. Is there any way to get them back?
Then someone replies with, "should've backed them up shouldn't you". Hardly helpful to the issue in hand.

Tucker

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Yes we would.

A structural survey cost much more. We were advised to go for a homebuyers survey. We weren't equipped with a crystal ball & the house appeared in good nick. For an 80 yr old house i guess it still is. A structural survey wouldn't sort the problem anyway.

I don't know the full ins & outs, but would a structural survey have made them remove the wardrobes, peel off the wallpaper? If not then this big water stain would never have been spotted, even with a structural survey.

If there are problems like this that the survey doesn't detect that existed at the time the survey was done, you can normally claim compensation. That's the whole point of it. It's also there as an insurance policy.

IF you'd do the same again as someone who doesn't appear very DIY savvy, then I would have to say it's very bold. I suspect the truth is the extra few hundred quid would have been better spent than the clear amount you have stressed from your posts on here about this first problem discovery!!

Maybe it doesn't help, but if one other person more wise takes heed from this, then it's worth using your plight as a good example.

I hope you get the leak sorted and the room redecorated thereafter. Best of luck.