Buying older house - advice following survey

Nathan80

So we have bit the bullet after 20 years and sold our home and are in the process of purchasing another house. We love the house but since the homebuyers report and searches have come back we are starting to get a bit nervous that we are about to make a really big naive mistake.

The homebuyers report indicated that there was some areas of damp in the property and we have had a quote that estimates £2500 for Remedial work. We have also had the roof looked at and the Roofer has come back saying that apart from the immediate work required it will soon need to be re-roofed.

The searches have indicated that the property is at risk of being built on contaminated land and also that it is Built on shrinkable subsoil. - solicited has suggested an indemnity insurance to cover this.

The house was built around 1600 and had some recent extensions built around 2005, we totally understand with an older house there is always going to be some degree of work required however we are slightly surprised that that every time we have something looked at it seems to come back with far more work than we realised.

Just wondered what any of you would you would you run a mile at this property or are we worrying ourselves unnecessarily with the issues that have come up, just started to panic a bit as we have already spent a significant amount getting this far don’t want be left with house of horrors at the end of it.

Thanks for any input xx

SG27

Who where the damp company and what work did they recommend? A house built in 1600 will have very different needs to a modern house and any contractors will need to have experience and understanding of old buildings.

Forget about the shrinkable sub soil its been there since 1600 and not shrunk yet!

Davesnave

Nathan80 wrote: »

So we have bit the bullet after 20 years and sold our home and are in the process of purchasing another house. We love the house but since the homebuyers report and searches have come back we are starting to get a bit nervous that we are about to make a really big naive mistake.

The homebuyers report indicated that there was some areas of damp in the property and we have had a quote that estimates £2500 for Remedial work. Did you appoint and pay for an independent timber and damp surveyor to decide what's really needed....or did you go direct to a damp proofing company and get a free assessment from them? If the latter, are you sure the company know/care about old houses and use appropriate techniques? Not all damp is treated in the same way and some 'expert' firms make older property worse in the long run by installing chemical DPCs they were never designed to have.



We have also had the roof looked at and the Roofer has come back saying that apart from the immediate work required it will soon need to be re-roofed. Fair enough. If you go ahead and buy, get a few other opinions, but find out what this might entail now. Are the timbers adequate? I re-roofed in 2016, but the main roof timbers were fine. If they'd been shot, it would have cost far more.


The searches have indicated that the property is at risk of being built on contaminated land and also that it is Built on shrinkable subsoil. - solicited has suggested an indemnity insurance to cover this. The whole of the London Basin is on 'shrinkable subsoil.' That's millions of houses! What contaminated the land before the house was built 400 years ago? What would the indemnity insurance protect you against?

The house was built around 1600 and had some recent extensions built around 2005, we totally understand with an older house there is always going to be some degree of work required however we are slightly surprised that that every time we have something looked at it seems to come back with far more work than we realised. This is often par for the course on a really old house. Is it listed? i.e. Grade 2? If so, this would add to your costs when repairing.
Just wondered what any of you would you would you run a mile at this property or are we worrying ourselves unnecessarily with the issues that have come up, just started to panic a bit as we have already spent a significant amount getting this far don’t want be left with house of horrors at the end of it. You didn't spend sufficiently on the Homebuyers' survey, which is appropriate to a property, say, 40-50 years old.



A property 400 years old deserves something more detailed from someone familiar with the vagaries of older buildings, who can summarise what's needed and the order in which they should be tackled, because remediation will take time.


Thanks for any input xx

Think of the old house like a vintage car; it can give the right people a great ownership experience or it might cause more hassle than it's worth to others. In other words, it may become like a hobby, and only you know whether that's what you want/can afford.

Doozergirl

"This is often par for the course on a really old house. Is it listed? i.e. Grade 2? If so, this would add to your costs when repairing."

Can't be bothered to quote correctly, but anything built before 1700 is automatically listed.

OP don't you dare have any of those remedial damp works, you will cause far more damage than presently exists. Any issue will be of a maintenance variety, not the kind that wraps what could be a timber building in a bin bag and turns it into a pond.

davidmcn

Nathan80 wrote: »

The searches have indicated that the property is at risk of being built on contaminated land

The house was built around 1600

Contaminated with what? Dung? What exactly does the report say?

Davesnave

davidmcn wrote: »

Contaminated with what? Dung? What exactly does the report say?

Even the Romans used some pretty nasty chemicals, or so I was told, when one of their glass works was unearthed next to my allotment.


Still ate the veg! :rotfl:

dunstonh

A homebuyers report is a simple report that generally lacks any proper investigation or analysis. Its typically suited for houses that are 20+ years old but not for older houses where a survey would have been better. Homebuyers reports tend to backside protect and flag things that are not necessarily an issue.

A house your age really needs a proper survey. Our survey was 104 pages. About 20 pages of generic explanations and issues dealing with older houses and build style but lots of useful info to go with it.

A homebuyers report is about 20 pages. My daughter recently had a homebuyers report on hers and it highlighted a load of potential issues but none of them actually existed when looked at in more detail.

How many pages in your report? It will give us an idea as to whether you had a full survey or the rather naff homebuyers report.

The homebuyers report indicated that there was some areas of damp in the property and we have had a quote that estimates £2500 for Remedial work. We have also had the roof looked at and the Roofer has come back saying that apart from the immediate work required it will soon need to be re-roofed.

Our survey highlighted several areas of damp. Thought to be mostly historic but one or two areas to keep on top of with maintenance. With older buildings it is common. There are a number of ways to resolve. Damp proof courses are frequently recommended by companies doing those things but actually rarely needed and may be totally unsuitable for a property of that age. So, you need to get someone who knows about old properties. A full survey would explain this in more detail.

Re-roofing may be a homebuyer report writer protecting themselves or it may be an issue. A full survey would explain more.

Just wondered what any of you would you would you run a mile at this property or are we worrying ourselves unnecessarily with the issues that have come up, just started to panic a bit as we have already spent a significant amount getting this far don’t want be left with house of horrors at the end of it.

Movement is often not a big issue and can often be reasonably controlled. A full survey would highlight the risks. It may be an idea to get a structural engineers report. Its more cost but they focus solely on the structure. In our case, the vendor covered the cost of the report and the cost of the repairs recommended. Structural engineers use a grading system and anything at 2 or less is not a concern beyond periodic maintenance. An indemnity is not required. We are on clay that expands and contracts each year. During droughts, like this year, the occasional crack opens up. Easily and simply repaired by a professional builder that knows how to deal with historic properties. And surprisingly cheap.

If movement is being reported or has happened then its declarable to the insurer. A structural engineers report and/or full survey will often satisfy them whereas a mortgage valuation/homebuyers report leaves them with scare information rather than useful information.

AdrianC

Doozergirl wrote: »

Can't be bothered to quote correctly, but anything built before 1700 is automatically listed.

No, it isn't. Not by a long chalk. Age alone has nothing to do with whether properties are listed or not.

I used to rent a cottage built c.1580. Not listed.


Going back to the original question, a c.1600 property is not somewhere that a generic surveyor (or roofer or damp-"proof" salesman) is going to be able to give any sensible details on.

Yes, there probably is "damp". It will never have had any damp course when it was built. It should have been maintained so it can breathe - and modern chemicals and cement plasters/renders make what would never have been a problem into one.

Does the roof actually need doing, or is it just a bit wavy, because the timbers are actual slices of tree?

As for "probably built on contaminated land" and "shrinkable subsoil", give me strength! What on earth was there BEFORE it was built? A bloody oil refinery? And how come the subsoil hasn't shrunk in 400+ years, but is at risk of doing in the next five?

bouicca21

I'm racking my brains to work out just what some Tudor industrialist was doing to contaminate the land. Do tell.

Or is it a typo and the place really was built on a landfill/gasworks/oil refinery site last year?

Mutton_Geoff

bouicca21 wrote: »

I'm racking my brains to work out just what some Tudor industrialist was doing to contaminate the land. Do tell.

Maybe they were hatters (as mad as ..) or tanners. Or insulated the lead pipes with asbestos. Lots of stuff once seen as normal has proven to be hazardous :-)

davidmcn

Mutton_Geoff wrote: »

Maybe they were hatters (as mad as ..) or tanners. Or insulated the lead pipes with asbestos. Lots of stuff once seen as normal has proven to be hazardous :-)

Sure, but I doubt there's a convenient database of geolocated pre-1600 hatteries and tanneries.