Homebuyer report - is this anything to worry about?

jbainbridge

Dird wrote: »

I just recieved mine. Do most surveyor's list gas/electic/drains as rating 3 (seems OK but get a certified expert ASAP)? what scaremongering -_

As has been said the surveyor is not an expert in these ... so simply recommends you get them checked. At the very least you should do a visual inspection of the electrics and see the boiler working. Or ask the vendor (via your solicitor) that there are no know problems with the boiler and electrics.

deviruchi

Brilliant, thank you all for your replies, they're very helpful and our minds have been put at rest. We wouldn't be looking to renegotiate on the price, we'll just make sure we have some money aside for any repairs / replacements. Good to know there's nothing actually scary come back on the report!

G_M

Do most surveyor's list gas/electic/drains as rating 3 (seems OK but get a certified expert ASAP)? what scaremongering -_

Actually I agree with Dird. It IS scaremonering. They could rate it lower but still recommend a specialist inspection.

daveyjp wrote: »

...

A surveyor isn't a gas engineer, electrician or plumber.

If you go to your GP and they identify a potentially serious health issue do they deal with it themselves or advise you go and see a specialist? A GP surveyor is no different. Lots of basic knowledge in lots of areas, but no in depth knowledge of most of them, hence the need to suggest using an expert.

The analogy is good, but not quite right.

Yes, if the GP identifies a 'seriously potential health issue', say a heart murmur, they refer it to a heart specialist. But this scenario it is more akin to the GP simply identifying that the patient has a heart (!), with no obvious adverse symptoms, and no cardiogram on record.

Now, if the patient is of a certain age, and is in for precautionary health check, referral for a cardiogram might be appropriate - but not accompanied by a scaremongering "This is an urgent level 3 requirement!"

On the other hand if the surveyor actually saw something worrying (1950s fuse box? gas boiler belching out smoke/rattling etc), then a level 3 might be appropriate. But to routinely label the recommendation level 3 IS scaremongering in my opinion.

red_imps_2003

G_M wrote: »

Actually I agree with Dird. It IS scaremonering. They could rate it lower but still recommend a specialist inspection.


The analogy is good, but not quite right.

Yes, if the GP identifies a 'seriously potential health issue', say a heart murmur, they refer it to a heart specialist. But this scenario it is more akin to the GP simply identifying that the patient has a heart (!), with no obvious adverse symptoms, and no cardiogram on record.

Now, if the patient is of a certain age, and is in for precautionary health check, referral for a cardiogram might be appropriate - but not accompanied by a scaremongering "This is an urgent level 3 requirement!"

On the other hand if the surveyor actually saw something worrying (1950s fuse box? gas boiler belching out smoke/rattling etc), then a level 3 might be appropriate. But to routinely label the recommendation level 3 IS scaremongering in my opinion.

I'm with you there. My heart certainly sank when I saw three level 3 red flags on our recent homebuyer survey. I was mightily relieved when two of them turned out to be 'it would be prudent to check the gas appliances are safe' and the other was 'careful your child doesn't fall through the gaps in the bannister'. Both are sensible advice, of course, but not as dramatic as a level 3 warning makes them appear.

I also had to chuckle at one of the level 2 recommendations, which observed that flat roofs can be prone to "sudden and dramatic failure". I know exactly what they mean and appreciate the warning and all, but the tone was amusing.