Surveyor missed major structural defect

Erinoco

The argument here is that the house was in fact not mortgageable due to the wall and the surveyor should never have passed it as such.

Erinoco

It asks 'is there any evidence of any structural issue caused by subsidence, land slide etc.
Then it asks if a structural report is required. He ticked no for both. The outer wall is clearly visible and he should have queried the wall and requested a report just like he did for the wall ties.

Erinoco

Because so many lintels have had to be replaced we also need to leave the work exposed for approval. The kitchen and dining room floors and ceilings need to be taken out so they can put in scaffolding inside to support the house so the work to do that and then put it all back together aswell as the wall I guess...

We are seeking a few more quotes and opinions on this of course but the main issue currently is the surveyor and responsibility.

unforeseen

Since it was a basic survey would it have been visible and obvious on a driveby?

Erinoco

[QUOTEx]Since it was a basic survey would it have been visible and obvious on a driveby?/QUOTE]

No but we know he looked round the property as the estate agent was with him so he should have seen it.

davidmcn

Emy74 wrote: »

If you had a mortgage valuation survey on behalf of the lender then it's unlikely you will be able to take any action against the surveyors only the lenders could.

OP, as above, are you talking about your survey or your lender's? You'd first need to establish that there was a duty of care, before even worrying about whether the surveyor had been negligent.

stator

You still haven't told us what type of survey it was.
If it wasn't at least a homebuyer's survey then you don't have a chance of claiming.

If it was a mortgage valuation survey then it's got nothing to do with you, it was for the bank only. If you default on your mortgage and the bank repossess and they can't sell the reposessed house they will sue the surveyor, but that's got nothing to do with you.

Doozergirl

Erinoco wrote: »

It asks 'is there any evidence of any structural issue caused by subsidence, land slide etc.
Then it asks if a structural report is required. He ticked no for both. The outer wall is clearly visible and he should have queried the wall and requested a report just like he did for the wall ties.

What is the title of that document ?

How many pages does that document contain?

AnotherJoe

Erinoco wrote: »

It asks 'is there any evidence of any structural issue caused by subsidence, land slide etc.

And obviously there wasn't until you builders appeared on the scene. Or at least, thats what they will say. I'm sure the vendors will also say, if asked "of course there wasn't any sign of subsidence" How will you prove different? You didn't spot it if it was as obvious as it now appears to be.

Erinoco wrote: »

Then it asks if a structural report is required. He ticked no for both. The outer wall is clearly visible and he should have queried the wall and requested a report just like he did for the wall ties.

I woudl say, that does NOT mean "is one required because it looks dodgy" it means "is one required by the buyer" and you didn't want one so he ticked the box. There would have been an extra charge for that.

Doozergirl

AnotherJoe wrote: »

And obviously there wasn't until you builders appeared on the scene. Or at least, thats what they will say. I'm sure the vendors will also say, if asked "of course there wasn't any sign of subsidence" How will you prove different? You didn't spot it if it was as obvious as it now appears to be.
.

Is anyone else actually reading what the OP is saying?
"It is clear to anyone in the know that the drop in the wall is old and the cause has been identified and a full structural report obtained."

The builder wasn't working near the area concerned.

And I'm sorry, but yes, you can very clearly see on a house what is an old problem and what is a new one. There should never be a case of 'he said she said' when a house has structural issues.