Survey

adonis10

Buying a quite a old house so want to ensure I get the best possible survey. Is it a Chartered Surveyor or Structural Surveyor?

Cakeguts

If you are worried about the structure you could try getting a structural engineers report.

adonis10

Cakeguts wrote: »

If you are worried about the structure you could try getting a structural engineers report.

Not worried, as such, but as we are thinking of having structural work done (wall removed) I assumed that a structural surveyor would be required. Can they do what a building surveyor does and more, or will we have to take the hit and have both?

MrJB

A building surveyor will look at the general condition of the property and look to see whether there are signs of any decay as well as highlighting potential issues such as potential subsidence.

A structural engineer will look at potential defects and confirm whether they need to be addressed.

Ie a surveyor may note cracking consistent with subsidence, but a structural engineer may state that it is historic and that the fabric of the building is substantial.

LadyDee

If you employ a Chartered Surveyor to carry out a survey of the property prior to purchase, he will provide information on the current condition and immediate problems such as damp, rotten roof, need to replace gutterings, etc. etc. Ask specifically beforehand whether they would be able to advise on the works you are considering.

I worked for a Chartered Surveyor for many years and he would happily give the type of advice you currently require. A Structural Engineer would more likely be employed to oversee the actual works.

Check out the RICS and the ISE for further information on the responsibilities of each profession.

MrJB

LadyDee wrote: »

If you employ a Chartered Surveyor to carry out a survey of the property prior to purchase, he will provide information on the current condition and immediate problems such as damp, rotten roof, need to replace gutterings, etc. etc. Ask specifically beforehand whether they would be able to advise on the works you are considering.

I worked for a Chartered Surveyor for many years and he would happily give the type of advice you currently require. A Structural Engineer would more likely be employed to oversee the actual works.

Check out the RICS and the ISE for further information on the responsibilities of each profession.

The surveyor may require a report from a structural engineer if they have reason to believe there to be structural issues. A structural engineer isn't simply someone who oversees work. Eg, if there was an issue with cracking to a building, surveyor may request a structural engineers report to confirm the load bearing of the property is sufficient etc.

adonis10

Good idea to avoid using the bank's building surveyor? Not impartial as it is in their best interest to say that all is fine (within reason) to get the mortgage sale pushed through as quickly as possible.

kinger101

If you use the bank's surveyor, they'll see a more detailed report than they would otherwise for a valuation. In effect, it means you're more likely to have the property downvalued, a retention placed on the mortgage, or simply refused.

It might give you a stronger hand in any price negotiations with the vendor. Or it might scupper the whole deal. Also, not all lenders offer the ability to have the full building survery; with Nationwide for example, only a Homebuyer's report was available.

The bank has no interest in giving you a mortgage on a property they believe is defective. The underwriter will say no if they don't like what they see in a survey.

adonis10

kinger101 wrote: »

If you use the bank's surveyor, they'll see a more detailed report than they would otherwise for a valuation. In effect, it means you're more likely to have the property downvalued, a retention placed on the mortgage, or simply refused.

It might give you a stronger hand in any price negotiations with the vendor. Or it might scupper the whole deal. Also, not all lenders offer the ability to have the full building survery; with Nationwide for example, only a Homebuyer's report was available.

The bank has no interest in giving you a mortgage on a property they believe is defective. The underwriter will say no if they don't like what they see in a survey.

Even if the mortgage is 145 on a 315 sale price?

Banks are interested solely in profit, period. Even if they think it is worth 285, why would they say that and potentially scupper the deal when they only need to recover 145 in the case of default etc.? Surely it's a case by case basis. They'll think "oh well, it's not worth what they're paying but it's worth much more than the mortgage so if they default we will have it and sell it cheap, make a profit from their interest and on the sale"

I can understand if we were borrowing 300 and they think it's worth 285.

Am I too cynical or are others too naive about the intentions of the banks?

kinger101

If there's a problem, they'll either (a) downvalue, (b) place a retention, (c) refuse. So either they won't lend, won't advance it all until something's fixed, or will force you onto a different LTV product where the interest rate matches the higher level of risk.

The property is collateral. They instruct a valuation for a reason.

adonis10

kinger101 wrote: »

If there's a problem, they'll either (a) downvalue, (b) place a retention, (c) refuse. So either they won't lend, won't advance it all until something's fixed, or will force you onto a different LTV product where the interest rate matches the higher level of risk.

The property is collateral. They instruct a valuation for a reason.

I don't think you understand my point.

I get all of that. I'm saying that even if they think it's worth 250, why would they potentially scupper a mortgage sale
When all they need to recover is 145? They'll just tell us they think all is well, sale goes through and voila they get theirs money. I can understand them being more wary if they were lending 90% of the sale price etc.