Do I need a full structural building survey

Neluc1210

Hi everyone.

I'm after a bit of advice whether there is any real need to pay for a full structural building survey on a mid-terrace house built in 1903. The house has a loft conversion done in the last few years with a certificate showing it meets building regulations.

My other half is adamant she wants a structural survey carried out, claiming it offers insurance should anything go wrong. However my family tell me that it's, to quote "a waste of money, especially in a terrace" and all the surveyors do is pass the buck. My family say that the surveyors will basically say 'yes the roof looks ok, but to make sure, get a proffesional roofer in' and by saying this have passed the responsibility on to me to make sure a professional looks at it. And if anything should go wrong, it is no longer surveyors responsibility to pay out the cost of repair.

Why don't we just forget the costly structural survey and get professionals in to look at all the different areas for a free/minimal charge?

I am a first time buyer myself, so I'm unsure which route to go, but my brother who has bought 2 houses in the last 5 years is the main person giving me this advice.

Any help is much appreciated.

Thanks

dominoman

For a 1903 building I would certainly get a structural survey done. At the very least it will tell you if there are serious issues that should make you walk away.

The cost of the survey can be recouped easily if it lets you negotiate some money off the price.

The alternative of getting a bunch of tradesmen in to look at it won't cost much less - and if I was a vendor I wouldn't want the hassle of lots of individual appointments

princeofpounds

Surveyors
- can be over-cautious
- and they do pass the buck on a few *specialised* areas (gas, electrics)
- and they don't always investigate inaccessible areas

BUT

that doesn't mean it's a waste of time or money, not remotely.

It's not about insurance, it's about risk reduction and about planning works for what you need to do on a house.

I bought a house a couple of decades older than that. I was very glad I got a survey. It meant that when I submitted my offer, I knew all about the condition of the flashing, the pointing, the timbers under the stairs, the septic tank, the plaster, the roof linings, the window frames etc.

Some of the stuff that looked an obvious problem was relatively minor. Some of the stuff that looked innocuous was actually a priority.

A homebuyer's survey is cheaper, better value if you are comfortable with having less customised information and just wanting to check you haven't missed any serious issues.

eddddy

Hi Neluc1210

I guess you could say the survey is a waste of money if no problems are found - but it could save you thousands (by giving you the opportunity to walk away) if problems are found.

The survey could uncover issues like bowing walls, a sagging roof, subsidence etc. Some of these are much easier and cheaper to fix early on.

For example, if a roof is just starting to sag (or deflect) it can easily be strengthened by adding additional timbers, plates etc. But if the sagging continues - until it is visible to the casual observer - expensive reconstruction may be required.

As for asking a roofer instead of a surveyor "Will you take a look at my roof to see if it's ok" - I'm not sure a roofer would do that. And unless I knew the roofer well, I'm not sure that I could trust the roofer's opinion.

To become a MRICS, a surveyor typically needs a relevant university degree plus 10 years experience. So picking one with MRICS after their name is usually a relatively safe bet.

Annie1960

I agree with what others have said above. I would not buy a property without a structural survey.

Neluc1210

Thankyou for all the responses. It has definitely broadened my understanding of this and it seems to answer is fairly conclusive, and I will find a local surveyor.

Thanks

Lord_Baltimore

Neluc1210 wrote: »

Thankyou for all the responses. It has definitely broadened my understanding of this and it seems to answer is fairly conclusive, and I will find a local surveyor.

Thanks

In which case you are wasting your money. Surveys are an out and out con.

A homebuyers report is laughable and an expensive structural survey will tell you nothing you can't see with your own eyes.

Ten years experience and a degree to write a few lists recommending you get further advice.....it's nice work if you can get it.

arthurdick

hi neluc.
it is down to you, but i would ignore lord's advice..
go for the full survey, a few hundred spent now is better than having to spend thousands later..
just saying you didn't get one, and there were problems that were a threat to being structurally sound but you didn't have the money to fix them, what then? try to sell and cut your losses, stay and wait until you can afford, may just be too late..
full structural survey gives you that little peace of mind, and may allow you to get a good discount on house price..

propertyman

Neluc1210 wrote: »

My other half is adamant she wants a structural survey carried out, claiming it offers insurance should anything go wrong.

To which you say " well my love , feel free to pay for it "


But seriously ignore the prattlings of your relatives as she is right and they are likely only to have one or two surveys in their life and are rehashing gossip from others.

A full survey, not a stage 1 mortgage valuation is a detailed inspection of the building and structure and will, in the case of a roof, if accessible diagnose and make recommendations for defects. A stage 1 won't.

It will also highlight other issues, although to be fair they are not gas engineers electricians drain technicians or woodworm and damp specialists, they simply identify these and where specialist advice and costs are needed, direct you.to them. it is afer all a stuctural survey not a gas safety check!

:money: To quote what I said earlier on another site today, for many homes a sensible buyer is better off thinking about having his own electrical gas and plant (boilers tanks etc) tests, and examining service histories, drains chimneys flues etc tested, and a timber and damp survey, alongside one of these inspections, especially in older premises( like your Victorian Terrace) . The surveyor is there to spot problems but how far they can inspect is limited by their terms of engagement, and fees, access and expertise.

For example I might inspect, as in one case, to find that the external walls were splaying at the top, and the vendor declined access to the loft. When he was in the garden I popped my head in and found the loft boarded and full, and I mean full to the ridge with stuff, and his darkroom.

In a HBR or FSS I might have explored further ( to the extent that you can in a packed loft) and make detailed recommendations on investigation and possible remedies, as I am acting for both lender and purchaser whose interest in it is as his home, but, in a mortgage valuation you would not, as while there is a duty of care to the purchaser, you are mainly concerned with the security for the loan.

In that case the MV would point to the concern but if the LTV was low then it might only be a condition to investigate and resolve and the loan granted. For buyers, they then assume that as a mortgage is granted, that it is not too serious, when it isn't!

http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/mor.../home-surveys/

You might then consider getting the above inspections and only the stage one mortgage vlauation instead. The vendor might not be too happy about lots of people tramping around though!

botchjob

late on this but we had a great surveyor for our current house who bluntly said it was a waste of time getting a full structual survey on the (Victorian) house unless it had been extended. As it had a kitchen extension, and as a bit of paperwork was missing, we ended up having a full structural survey done.

Which turned up nothing untoward that one would expect from a 120 year old house that had stood all that time.

I agree that there's a hysteria among many buyers who like hand holding and think it would be MAD not to have a full structural. Well it's not.

Lord_Baltimore

arthurdick wrote: »

hi neluc.
it is down to you, but i would ignore lord's advice..

Hang on Arthurdick, I'm offering an opinion and as such my views are as valid as yours. We just have a different point of view and the OP is entitled to a bit of balance.

You have cited precisely the circumstances that this surveying lark preys on - insecurity. "What will happen if....?", "who will cover my potential losses if...?" etc. Well, I can tell you it won't be a surveyor.

The fact of the matter is that whatever survey you have done, the surveyor will ensure the report is couched in terms that cover his rear end; he will recommend you get in specialists or have the blatant cheek to say he didn't examine some things because a carpet was in the way or the wallpaper hid severe problems or such like.

A so-called structural survey will cost the OP a lot of money and, in truth, most people won't walk away once they've spent money on a house even if the surveyor has the balls to say what he really thinks instead of just picking up a pay cheque.

Tell you what OP, spend your hard-earned on getting a 'professional opinion' then come back and let us know if it was worth the money. And how much you have to spend on the recommended specialists.