Vague buildings survey

walter111

Hi There,

So im buying an old house circa 1900. As i'm buying cash I opted for only a buildings survey which I now realise was not in depth enough to give me what i was looking for I should have gone straight for a structural engineers survey and missed this out altogether.

The most important reason for me getting the survey was to ascertain was the property stable.

It mentions the property has been subject to some settlement and distortion over the years which appears to be old and longstanding in nature. but it does not mention subsidence.
It also says there are no major signs of differential movement.

I understand all building settle, therefore all building especially older ones will show that.

I understand subsidence is a collapsing of the ground under the buildlng but not due to the building itself, so its worse.
Whereas settlement is a settling of the building into the ground, which is normal.

It says some rebonding will be needed between the terraces each side ( there are very small cracks in the cement between the terraces)
Having a walk around this area it appears all the terraces show this kind of cracking in between and some worse than mine!

There are no major cracks in the walls, across the walls or around the windows or doors, inside or out. The doors inside all fit very nicely.

Yet it says to get a structural engineer to look at it and check its stable!

it actually seems that nearly everything in the report says looks fine for a property that age but recommends I get a second opinion from an expert on a lot of things.

It seems vague, Im not sure if the surveyor is just covering his !!!! or what, is this what they normally do?

Plus a lot of the report tells me really obvious useless things like I should update the decoration in the bathroom which I could have told him.

Those people who just reply "walk away" to threads like this don't bother, I'm looking for more interesting and thoughtful replies than that please.

Thanks.

Surrey_EA

Has something made you think the property might suffer from subsidence? It would be amazing if a property that is 120yrs old had not moved a little over its life.

To 'only' have a building survey carried out is fairly extensive, and should be a very thorough report on the condition of the entire property.

A structural engineer's report has a far narrower brief, and investigates only the structural integrity of the building.

Have you spoken to the surveyor, or just read the report? often a chat with them will tell you more than 50pages of backside covering ever will.

walter111

Nothing makes me think it has subsidence it seems very solid.
My last property was by the railway sidings rattled when the trains went by and and leant about 20 degrees and that wasn't subsiding either.
I spoke to the surveyor yesterday and he said subsidence and settlement are the same thing, he seemed quite jolly in telling me he couldn't clarify whether the property was sinking or not. I felt we went in circles with the conversation.
I have seen examples of building surveys on line that were far more exhaustive than this one, but this was cheap.
I thought they all had to provide the same but i guess as with everything you get what you pay for.

Surrey_EA

walter111 wrote: »

you get what you pay for.

That pretty much sums it up!

Hoploz

Is there anything you've noticed that's worrying you in the house?

It looks to me like it says it has moved a little in the past but this looks to be historic.

Which sounds ok esp as you've said there don't seem to be any signs of movement internally.

There's no reason why you shouldn't have a structural engineer have a look as well, but it sounds like there's probably not a lot to worry about.

BTW did he mention damp? They normally do!

Erkahj

I have just received back my Home buyer's survey and I'm getting the same feelings as you however when I researched online this is definitely a highly recommended surveyor so I was a bit suprised.

It's pretty vague and just says 'Problem 1, recommend to speak to Expert 1' 'Problem 2, recommend to speak to Expert 2'

One bit actually made my LOL: 'Blind in Bathroom has rust in the corner, I'd recommend speaking to a Blind Specialist'

LOL - yes I will make sure I chat to my local Hillary's sales rep!

BTW did he mention damp? They normally do!

Mine mentioned Damp! Is this pretty normal @Hoploz?

SG27

They are all vague and all recommend getting specialists in. Its so you cant sue them if they miss something hidden.

ReadingTim

walter111 wrote: »

Those people who just reply "walk away" to threads like this don't bother, I'm looking for more interesting and thoughtful replies than that please.

!!!!!! - what do you think the options are?!?

Ultimately you have 3 choices:

• Buy house & fix issues (or get issues fixed then buy house)
  
• Buy house & don't fix issues
  
• Don't buy house

No-one is going to tell you what to do - this is your decision, as it is your money. Grow up and take responsibility for your own decisions.

Surrey_EA

Erkahj wrote: »

It's pretty vague

A friend of mine called recently and asked me to help him interpret a survey report he had received.

His view having read it was that "he says it's basically fine, but there is a possibility it might fall down!" :rotfl:

Jaffapig

Erkahj wrote: »

One bit actually made my LOL: 'Blind in Bathroom has rust in the corner, I'd recommend speaking to a Blind Specialist'

:rotfl:

I laughed at our surveyor pointing out some moss on the roof tiles but that is really something else!

avacapri

you do wonder what is the point when all they are worried about is negligence claims, we could all write a list of expert reports you need.
As i see it if you are concerned then you need to get a structural engineer to report, I dont know the position on your building insurance, if you choose to ignore the recommendation to get a report and you then go on to make a claim logic tells me you could invalidate the claim.