Building survey - Victorian semi

illusionek

Hello

I am FTB in the process of buying 3bed semi-detached (ca 1890) in Greater London.

I've just got a copy of building survey (level 3) and it reads like a horror story where the surveyor starts with statement saying that the property requires extensive repair and betterment and certainly after completing the process I will not have much left for any expensive repairs in the near future.

I have heard stories that surveyors are covering their backs and can potentially make it look far worse than it is but since I have not owned the house before I do not know how serious highlighted issues are.

I expected to see some issue with damp or electricity since it is not brand new but I got really concerned that roof covering and structure were marked as urgent. This house is currently rented out so I kind of was hoping that it will be in a good overall condition as the landlords needs to follow strict regulations. So definitely I did not expect the survey to highlight so many issues as serious/urgent (7 out of 17)

Can anyone please let me know if below issues with roof are serious and require immediate attention indeed? If so what would be the ballpark figure to get it fixed? I fully appreciate that no-one can say for sure without seeing it but as it stands now I am just clueless, so any help will be greatly appreciated!

====
Roof coverings: C
Findings of this property:
Coverings to the main roof structure are of interlocking concrete tiles, which as mentioned at D1 ‘Chimney stacks’ may be contemporary with the buildings’ first gas fired central heating system. It is likely that this would have been installed circa 1970.
These primary coverings overlay roofing/sarking felt, which as mentioned above is installed as a secondary defence against wind driven rain/snow/damp penetrating the building below.
Coverings to the front elevations’ bay structure are of plain concrete tiles, which might be contemporary with those to the main roof structure.
Laid to the rear extensions’ flat roof structure is bituminous felt, which has itself been covered in gravel.
In material condition, concrete coverings to the main roof structure remain consistent with my presumption over their age. These are perfectly serviceable for some years to come.
At eaves height to the roofs’ hips, hip irons have been installed to better support hip tiles. These metal fixings remain generally satisfactory in their condition, being free of any significant displacement or corrosion.
A verge is formed at the rear projections’ gabled elevation. Where verges are formed, high winds have been known to strip coverings from roof structures. In order to prevent this happening, this verge has been detailed with mortar, under cloaks supporting the mortar mix. Commonly found to deteriorate in their condition, mortar to this roofs’ verge remains generally satisfactory in its’ condition, the verge free of any notable or concerning defects.
As mentioned at ‘Limitations to inspection’, I was not able to inspect a valley formed between transversely and longitudinally orientated parts of the main roof structure. Valleys such as this one are prone to failure, the collection of leaf and other debris being a contributing cause. Whilst I was not able to inspect the valleys’ external parts, I could see that it is not currently leaking, this determination possible after having inspected the roof void/stricture.
Also having inspected the roof void/structure was I able to inspect roofing/sarking felt laid beneath primary coverings to the roof. This is showing clear signs of age related fatigue, sagging at several locations. Unfortunately I also found that the felt has been holed. Where damaged/holed the felt cannot perform its’ purpose and the prevention of penetrating damp is wholly reliant upon the good condition of primary coverings to the roof.
Lichen was noted to contaminate roof coverings. Although a little unsightly, this is not thought particularly deleterious to their fabric, its’ removal not an urgent matter.
Where moss establishes upon concrete roof coverings, this is also not particularly deleterious to their fabric, however it will inevitably have adverse consequences to other parts of the building. See E3 ‘Rainwater pipes and gutters’.
As discussed at my ‘Introduction’, where concrete coverings replace lighter coverings such as slates, which I suspect were this roofs’ original coverings, their additional weight can cause the roof structure to dish/distort. From ground level I could see that exactly this has occurred, distortion/dishing also identified to the roofs’ foremost hip. Please see E1 ‘Roof structure’ in this regard.

In their material condition, coverings to the front elevations’ bay structure very much reflect those to the main building, as do hip irons installed here also.
Where coverings to the bays’ roof structure meet with the main buildings’ front elevation, to form a watertight abutment a tiled mortar fillet has been installed. Mortar, in this use, is not considered a good longterm material. Being prone to thermal expansion/contraction and to failure, those tiles have been installed to mitigate this problem. Although thought to improve the details performance, a tiled mortar fillet will never be as robust or long lived as lead flashings, which are considered most appropriate. Whilst nothing was found to suggest that the mortar fillet is currently leaking, you should foresee this possibility, lead flashings to then replace the mortar.
Felt coverings to the buildings’ flat roofed single story extension, as mentioned above, have themselves been covered in gravel.
Where meeting with a parapet wall to the roofs’ left hand side, straight chased lead flashings have been dressed into the masonry and then laid over an up-stand to felt coverings. Although it does not appear that an adequate timber fillet has been installed beneath the felt, this to provide for two forty five degree turns into the up-stand rather than one at ninety degrees, the lead detailing over is thought good practice.
Where meeting with the rear projections’ external wall, felt coverings to the extensions’ roof are less well detailed. It is here that the felt is simply dressed up the wall and then chased into masonry. Where chased into the wall, mortar pointing has since failed and fallen away. The renewal of this mortar is required.
Gravel laid to the roof does not comprehensively cover the felt, exposed areas clearly visible. At the roofs’ rear verge this exposed felt has much deteriorated in its’ condition, coverings to this roof consequently very close to the end of their effective lifespan.
With an average lifespan of circa fifteen years I suspect that felt coverings to the rear extension will fail at any time, their renewal something you must budget for.

===========

Roof structure
Findings of this property:
The original roof structure is of a traditional timber frame, this one likely to have incorporated such elements a ridge board, common rafters, hip rafters, hip jacks, valley rafter, valley jacks, purlins, struts, spreader plates, binders, ceiling joists and wall plates.
As mentioned at D2 ‘Roof coverings’, when viewed with the use of binoculars from ground level and within the curtilage of the property or from adjoining public thoroughfares/land, slopes to the main roof structure revealed some undulations, these most likely the result of additional weight imposed to the structure by much heavier coverings now laid over.
It does appear that some consideration has been given to the roofs’ additional loading, thick set timbers since installed across ceiling joists and supporting props to the roofs’ purlins. Evidencing their more recent installation, this possibly undertaken during or just after the roofs’ re-covering, is the fact that these heavy set timbers extend over both partially removed chimney breasts. Also retrospectively installed and to further strengthen the roof structure are collar tiles.
In addition to the aforementioned additional timbers to the roof, it also seems that certain timbers have more recently been renewed. Certainly at the roofs’ front slope horizontally orientated timbers bearing to ceiling joists and supporting notched rafter ends have been renewed. These works are not comprehensive, older timbers remaining in situ and much deteriorated in condition.
Although the roof and its’ present coverings are longstanding, it is quite possible that the structure remains inadequately specified for those heavy concrete tiles over. Only a structural engineer would be in a position to determine this. I would suggest it prudent to have such a professional inspect this roof, recommendations to be incorporated within a written report to be provided.
I found no significant rot to roof timbers nor evidence suggesting any ongoing infestation by wood boring insects, however my inspection was very limited. Given this buildings’ age, it is reasonable to assume that it will have suffered both of these problems in the past. It is also possible that both may be ongoing but concealed from view. For this reason I must strongly recommend that you have all timbers to the building inspected by a specialist contractor. To seek such a contractor you might contact the Property Care Association.
Insulation to the roof structure, this being quilt laid between ceiling joists, is wholly inadequate in its’ depth and should be increased to at least 300mm. Such works will inevitably elevate levels of relative humidity within the roof void, thereby promoting condensation damp and mould spores. I found that numerous timbers to the roof are already contaminated by mould, this illustrating high humidity and the roofs’ inadequate ventilation. In this regard I would refer you back to my ‘Introduction’ and to that subsection headed ‘Ventilation and insulation’ in particular.

Velvet_Glove

I'm afraid I can't advise on the specifics but I just wanted to say that when we bought out flat (as FTBs) our survey mentioned asbestos. Taking advice from family that they were just covering themselves and it probably wasn't as bad as the survey made out, don't poke it, etc, we moved in. We had to deal with asbestos extraction when upstairs had a bathroom leak (luckily on their insurance) and it's going to add to our kitchen renovation as we have to have it taken out/capped off so it is safe. Really wishing we'd just had it all taken out before we moved in.

G_M

illusion_ek wrote: »

I expected to see some issue with damp or electricity since it is not brand new why? My house is 1850 and has no damp and modern electrics.

but I got really concerned that roof covering and structure were marked as urgent. This house is currently rented out so I kind of was hoping that it will be in a good overall condition as the landlords needs to follow strict regulations.
No guarantee. There are good and bad landlords. As a generalisation, tenanted properties tend to be in worse condition than owner-occupied.

====
Roof coverings: C
Findings of this property:
Coverings to the main roof structure are of interlocking concrete tiles, which as mentioned at D1 ‘Chimney stacks’ may be contemporary with the buildings’ first gas fired central heating system. It is likely that this would have been installed circa 1970.
These primary coverings overlay roofing/sarking felt, which as mentioned above is installed as a secondary defence against wind driven rain/snow/damp penetrating the building below.
good. It has felt. Many properties don't

Coverings to the front elevations’ bay structure are of plain concrete tiles, which might be contemporary with those to the main roof structure.
Laid to the rear extensions’ flat roof structure is bituminous felt, which has itself been covered in gravel.
In short:
concrete tiles and felt on main roof, bitumous felt on flat roof.
All pretty standard.

In material condition, concrete coverings to the main roof structure remain consistent with my presumption over their age. These are perfectly serviceable for some years to come.
so no problem

At eaves height to the roofs’ hips, hip irons have been installed to better support hip tiles. These metal fixings remain generally satisfactory in their condition, being free of any significant displacement or corrosion.
so no problem

A verge is formed at the rear projections’ gabled elevation. Where verges are formed, high winds have been known to strip coverings from roof structures. In order to prevent this happening, this verge has been detailed with mortar, under cloaks supporting the mortar mix. Commonly found to deteriorate in their condition, mortar to this roofs’ verge remains generally satisfactory in its’ condition, the verge free of any notable or concerning defects.
so no problem

As mentioned at ‘Limitations to inspection’, I was not able to inspect a valley formed between transversely and longitudinally orientated parts of the main roof structure. Valleys such as this one are prone to failure, the collection of leaf and other debris being a contributing cause. Whilst I was not able to inspect the valleys’ external parts, I could see that it is not currently leaking, this determination possible after having inspected the roof void/stricture.
so no problem

Also having inspected the roof void/structure was I able to inspect roofing/sarking felt laid beneath primary coverings to the roof. This is showing clear signs of age related fatigue, sagging at several locations. Unfortunately I also found that the felt has been holed. Where damaged/holed the felt cannot perform its’ purpose and the prevention of penetrating damp is wholly reliant upon the good condition of primary coverings to the roof.
so the felt is old. No surprise. As stated above, many houses have NO felt.
Replace if you wish (expensive as tiles have to come off!) but if there's no sign of damp in the attic, why bother?

Lichen was noted to contaminate roof coverings. Although a little unsightly, this is not thought particularly deleterious to their fabric, its’ removal not an urgent matter.
so no problem

Where moss establishes upon concrete roof coverings, this is also not particularly deleterious to their fabric,
so no problem
however it will inevitably have adverse consequences to other parts of the building. See E3 ‘Rainwater pipes and gutters’.
cheap and easy to unblock if required.

As discussed at my ‘Introduction’, where concrete coverings replace lighter coverings such as slates, which I suspect were this roofs’ original coverings, their additional weight can cause the roof structure to dish/distort. From ground level I could see that exactly this has occurred, distortion/dishing also identified to the roofs’ foremost hip. Please see E1 ‘Roof structure’ in this regard.
Potentially a problem, though as it seems these heavier tiles have been there a long time (since 1970?) and the roof has not collapsed, I suspect it's not about to!

In their material condition, coverings to the front elevations’ bay structure very much reflect those to the main building, as do hip irons installed here also.
Where coverings to the bays’ roof structure meet with the main buildings’ front elevation, to form a watertight abutment a tiled mortar fillet has been installed. Mortar, in this use, is not considered a good longterm material. Being prone to thermal expansion/contraction and to failure, those tiles have been installed to mitigate this problem. Although thought to improve the details performance, a tiled mortar fillet will never be as robust or long lived as lead flashings, which are considered most appropriate. Whilst nothing was found to suggest that the mortar fillet is currently leaking, you should foresee this possibility, lead flashings to then replace the mortar.
so no problem at present. If you get leaks in the future, easy to replace with lead - but no reason to do so now as there's no problem.

Felt coverings to the buildings’ flat roofed single story extension, as mentioned above, have themselves been covered in gravel.
Where meeting with a parapet wall to the roofs’ left hand side, straight chased lead flashings have been dressed into the masonry and then laid over an up-stand to felt coverings. Although it does not appear that an adequate timber fillet has been installed beneath the felt, this to provide for two forty five degree turns into the up-stand rather than one at ninety degrees, the lead detailing over is thought good practice.
so no problem

Where meeting with the rear projections’ external wall, felt coverings to the extensions’ roof are less well detailed. It is here that the felt is simply dressed up the wall and then chased into masonry. Where chased into the wall, mortar pointing has since failed and fallen away. The renewal of this mortar is required.
Half a day's work for a chap to renew the mortar. £50 - £150 depending on location and who you use.

Gravel laid to the roof does not comprehensively cover the felt, exposed areas clearly visible. At the roofs’ rear verge this exposed felt has much deteriorated in its’ condition, coverings to this roof consequently very close to the end of their effective lifespan.
With an average lifespan of circa fifteen years I suspect that felt coverings to the rear extension will fail at any time, their renewal something you must budget for.
This is always true of lat roofs. Unless one of the very new modern coverings is used, traditional bitumen lasts 10 - 25 years. Buy a hose with a flat roof and you know there is a chance (though not a cetainty) that you'll have to replace the roof covering one day.

At present there seems no need as there's no leaks/damp.

You could buy some gravel at B&Q and add it yourself one weekend.

===========

Roof structure
Findings of this property:
The original roof structure is of a traditional timber frame, this one likely to have incorporated such elements a ridge board, common rafters, hip rafters, hip jacks, valley rafter, valley jacks, purlins, struts, spreader plates, binders, ceiling joists and wall plates.
As mentioned at D2 ‘Roof coverings’, when viewed with the use of binoculars from ground level and within the curtilage of the property or from adjoining public thoroughfares/land, slopes to the main roof structure revealed some undulations, these most likely the result of additional weight imposed to the structure by much heavier coverings now laid over.
OK - so the concrete tiles (1970?) are heavier than the original (slate?) ones.

It does appear that some consideration has been given to the roofs’ additional loading, thick set timbers since installed across ceiling joists and supporting props to the roofs’ purlins. Evidencing their more recent installation, this possibly undertaken during or just after the roofs’ re-covering, is the fact that these heavy set timbers extend over both partially removed chimney breasts. Also retrospectively installed and to further strengthen the roof structure are collar tiles.
So work has been done to support the extra weight of the concrete tiles.

In addition to the aforementioned additional timbers to the roof, it also seems that certain timbers have more recently been renewed. Certainly at the roofs’ front slope horizontally orientated timbers bearing to ceiling joists and supporting notched rafter ends have been renewed. These works are not comprehensive, older timbers remaining in situ and much deteriorated in condition.
So some timber replaced, some still original.
Need to know what " deteriorated in condition" means. How serious?
Ask!

Although the roof and its’ present coverings are longstanding, it is quite possible that the structure remains inadequately specified for those heavy concrete tiles over. Only a structural engineer would be in a position to determine this. I would suggest it prudent to have such a professional inspect this roof, recommendations to be incorporated within a written report to be provided.
So although extra support was added for the heavier tiles, this may not have been enough - hence the 'undulations' (roof has sagged a bt in some places).

A Structural Engineer could calculate the exact weight of the tiles, and the exact strength of the supports, and advise you if it's enough.

Though if this has been like this since 1970, I really doubt it's going to collapse now!

Your choice.

I found no significant rot to roof timbers nor evidence suggesting any ongoing infestation by wood boring insects, however my inspection was very limited. Given this buildings’ age, it is reasonable to assume that it will have suffered both of these problems in the past.
So no problem has been identified.

It is also possible that both may be ongoing but concealed from view.
It's also possible the current occupant has concealed a bomb from view under the floorboards.
For this reason I must strongly recommend that you have all timbers to the building inspected by a specialist contractor. To seek such a contractor you might contact the Property Care Association.
If you are paranoid, get a specialist in. And/or ask the seller if he had the timber treated at any time and has a warranty. Or simply don't worry.

Insulation to the roof structure, this being quilt laid between ceiling joists, is wholly inadequate in its’ depth and should be increased to at least 300mm.
Buy some insulation (£30?) at B&Q and lay it yourself one weekend.
Or see if your utility provider is still offering free insulation.

Such works will inevitably elevate levels of relative humidity within the roof void, thereby promoting condensation damp and mould spores. I found that numerous timbers to the roof are already contaminated by mould, this illustrating high humidity and the roofs’ inadequate ventilation. In this regard I would refer you back to my ‘Introduction’ and to that subsection headed ‘Ventilation and insulation’ in particular.

The ventilation seems the biggest issue here.

After buying the house, get 3 builders in to quote for installing half a dozen ventilating roof tiles (£8 each?) and/or some soffit vent grills (£0.20 each).

This comprehensive report will be useful to you during your period of ownership. You know what might go wrong. You know what to do IF it goes wrong. And it identifies a couple of things to consider now.

Nothing there would put me off.

Chanes

I've never read a survey that wasn't somehow designed to scare the pants off the buyer. We had a full building survey on a house that was 30 years old (silly and not needed) and the survey was terrible reading. I spoke to the surveyor and, to summarise, he said he had to write something to fill up the pages because I paid for a building survey.

Have the roof examined thoroughly by an expert and act on the urgent details they advise you about - if any.

It really doesn't look too spooky as far as surveys launguage goes.

AlexMac

illusionek wrote: »

Can anyone please let me know if below issues with roof are serious and require immediate attention indeed? If so what would be the ballpark figure to get it fixed? I fully appreciate that no-one can say for sure without seeing it but as it stands now I am just clueless, so any help will be greatly appreciated!

As G_M has said, there's virtually nothing about this roof that would put me off. The original slates seem to have lasted 70-80 years before they were replaced with heavier tiles, and although the roof timbers were, it seems, beefed up a bit to cope with the added weight, the whole structure has sagged a little (but only a little) as is common when you replace a lightweight roof covering with a heavier layer.

There are whole terraces of re-tileed properties in my area (ironically, one particularly bad streetful done by the Council freeholder) where the timbers haven't been strengthened and which now resemble a series of waves where the ridges have sagged between each party wall! But they are still intact and (like your ones) watertight.

Some features, like the fact that there actually is the recommended lead flashing in places rather than a cheap mortar fillet where the roof joins the wall or chimney are positively reassurig.

And while there is probably another 40+ years life in the cement roof-tiles, the surveyor is merely stating the bl33dinoBvius by pointing out that small flat felt roof has a design life of 15 years; my house has a couple of Sq M of felt overlain with chippings dating from the original construction in 1986 and it's still perfect at keeping the rain out.

And do take up GM's suggestion to lay thick loft insulation. We got the gas board to do ours at a subsidised (but still toppy) price as it was only a couple of inches thick and I didn't fancy crawling about up there myself. The winter temperatures in the bedroom went up 5 degrees!

Don't worry about your lack of knowledge - I bought my first 1890's house over 40 years ago when I was technically illiterate, but have picked up enough about Victorian houses to really get my head around how they perform; especially when it comes to moisture; the arch enemy!

Go for it