Negligent surveyor - please advise

mrginge

Why is this the surveyors fault then?
They told you to check things.


How would the solicitor know that the roof had been replaced? Did you tell him?

krestaoscar

Homebuyer report, as stated in my original post.

How would the solicitor know the roof was replaced?

That's what we got a survey for. The surveyor didn't tell US the roof had been replaced, so we couldn't tell our solicitor to double-check the planning consent.

Unless somehow you're suggesting it's all my fault that I've taken advice from professionals and wound up with a house where the garage is a) a heap and b) hasn't got planning consent.

Thanks for your help!

HouseBuyer77

Regardless of whether or not the surveyor should have noticed that the roof had been modified compared to what was given consent you would have thought you'd have a case against them for not noticing the walls bowing, the lintels cracking or mentioning at the very least that you should have some further inspections done on the garage.

Though if on the section of the report relating to the garage they wrote something to the effect of 'there is some suspicion the structure of the garage is not sound and we suggest a further structural survey is carried out on it' they'd be in the clear.

krestaoscar

Hi HouseBuyer77

There was no mention of structural issues or any suggestion that we needed a structural survey. Had they said there was, we'd have walked away, because we'd already noted the bowing of the roofline when we viewed the property. In effect, the report told us nothing we couldn't see for ourselves. What it did was give us a false reassurance that our initial fears about the roof weren't warranted.

Thanks
Oscar

HouseBuyer77

Did you ask the regional director why the cracked lintels and bowing walls were not mentioned in the report? Seems worrying about whether not the surveyor should have noticed the modified roof is a red herring. It sounds like there were clear signs the garage was not sound and the surveyor missed them.

krestaoscar

Basically his attitude - whilst congenial and respectful - was that he wasn't going to tell me anything there and then, he was there to see what the condition was, whether the surveyor should have noticed the issues and if so, what he should have said about them. I wasn't expecting him to accept liability for anything. He took photos of every one of the defects I had highlighted in my own photos and agreed that the roof wasn't triangulated. If all it needed was some wood inserting to triangulate it, that would have been fine. That's what they basically said on the survey. Unfortunately though, it's already caused damage so I don't think such work on the roof would be adequate.

Initially, he thought the gable end wasn't tied in at all - "quite worried about that wall" were the words he used. He then spotted something I'd missed - not being a builder - that the two brick piers either side of the gable which just ended a few inches shy of the sole plate, had a pair of half-bricks on the top-course. These bricks actually went through the wall and can be seen from the outside once you know where to look. He was a bit happier then but still said that it was inadequate and needed this repeating as it was only done twice - at the ceiling height of the original roof (dead give-away) and at the top of the gable. It's basically a single-leaf 2 storey wall and all that's holding it up is a single-thickness brick pier on either side with a couple of bricks tying it together.

He also asked me if we'd had written quotations and said it would be advisable to get them as this would side-step part of their complaints process.

To get the letter this morning basically saying "get stuffed" was galling. Mrs Oscar is pregnant and hasn't stopped crying all day.

All the best
Oscar

mrginge

krestaoscar wrote: »

Homebuyer report, as stated in my original post.

How would the solicitor know the roof was replaced?

That's what we got a survey for. The surveyor didn't tell US the roof had been replaced, so we couldn't tell our solicitor to double-check the planning consent.

How would the surveyor have know that the roof had been replaced and was not simply original design?

Unless somehow you're suggesting it's all my fault that I've taken advice from professionals and wound up with a house where the garage is a) a heap and b) hasn't got planning consent.

Thanks for your help!

Is the level of advice you say you require contained within the scope of a homebuyers report?

krestaoscar

How would the surveyor have know that the roof had been replaced and was not simply original design?

I'm not a builder, but I worked it out for myself due to:

1) The bricks of the "new" gable end are completely different from the ground-floor storey of the garage, which matches the house.
2) There are beams within the garage which are below the level of the sole-plate of the current roof and not connected to it at all
3) There is a 2-course line of mastic on the house wall, corresponding to the old felt roof
4) The guttering of the current roof projects 1/3 over the dining room extension window. It doesn't take Einstein to work out that the extension couldn't have been built with that roof in situ.

Is the level of advice you say you require contained within the scope of a homebuyers report?

In the company's words, the survey is designed to "help a purchaser make a reasoned decision as to whether to purchase a property and if so, how much to pay."

We had concerns about the roof
The survey came back saying it wasn't "serious or urgent."
They gave a 3 (serious, in need of repair or replacement) to a cement-asbestos flue running up the party wall which isn't in use and is of no danger to anyone provided it isn't hit with a sledege hammer. As the loft is full of insulation and not boarded out, the chance of anyone monkeying with the flue is zero.

So yes, a simple "get a structural engineer to check this out, it doesn't seem quite right" would definitely be in the scope of the survey, not to mention would have covered their backs and avoided all of this.

mrginge

krestaoscar wrote: »

That's what we got a survey for. The surveyor didn't tell US the roof had been replaced, so we couldn't tell our solicitor to double-check the planning consent.

Followed by....

krestaoscar wrote: »

I'm not a builder, but I worked it out for myself due to:

1) The bricks of the "new" gable end are completely different from the ground-floor storey of the garage, which matches the house.
2) There are beams within the garage which are below the level of the sole-plate of the current roof and not connected to it at all
3) There is a 2-course line of mastic on the house wall, corresponding to the old felt roof
4) The guttering of the current roof projects 1/3 over the dining room extension window. It doesn't take Einstein to work out that the extension couldn't have been built with that roof in situ.

It reads to me like they told you that there were 'some' concerns and advised you to get further clarification.

Your issue seems to be that they didn't give you 'enough' concerns and as a result you didn't then perform the correct due diligence (despite your own assessment above).

The question is what constitutes 'enough' of a concern under the scope of a homebuyers compared to a full structural survey.
Obviously if they reject your complaint on the basis that they provided you with the level of detail required under a homebuyers survey then your option is to escalate through their complaints procedures and if still not satisfied then to legal action.

krestaoscar

It reads to me like they told you that there were 'some' concerns and advised you to get further clarification.

No, they didn't advise further clarification, as I've stated multiple times. Had they advised a more detailed survey, we would have walked away. The only problem feature we could see externally on our viewing was the sagging ridge-line. This is the only issue they reported on and advised further collar supports as a precaution.

The problem is that if that's ALL that was required - the quote was 1 day's work and 300 quid in materials, it would have been done and sorted out, but it isn't. It's structurally unsound, requires the rear wall rebuilding and the roof replacing. The costs are about 20x what was projected.

Your issue seems to be that they didn't give you 'enough' concerns and as a result you didn't then perform the correct due diligence (despite your own assessment above).

My assessment above was undertaken after we moved in, the weather brightened up and we started getting quotations into having the repair work done. If I'd been able to inspect and found all the above prior to making an offer, I'd not have gone through with the purchase. I hounded the solicitor on a daily basis regarding checking covenants, getting indemnities and so forth. The purchase was delayed for weeks because of a missing cavity wall insulation warranty which had been misplaced (eventually found).

We relied on the survey because the surveyor had inspected the internals of the garage and was qualified to make an assessment. ALL he needed to say was, "the roof has been altered and is of poor construction. Advise checking planning consent and obtaining specialist advise regarding the structure." He didn't. This implies there was little concern.

Contrast that with what he said about the electrics, which he gave a 3 and said, "where visible the cabling is of modern sheathed PVC type. The IEE do recommend that electrical systems are inspected and tested on change of occupancy. If you want to be reassured, you should ask an appropriately qualified person to inspect the electrical system now."

There's your precedent, right there, for advising further professional assessment where warranted. No such advice was provided for the garage.