Home buying surveys: any checklist / recommended structure? Many seem so caveated they're useless

SouthLondonUser

I'm looking at a couple of mid-terrace freehold houses in England, probably about 80 to 100 years old (to buy).

Not exactly an expert here, but the few surveys I have seen were so heavily caveated that I wondered what use they actually were. The properties could have been built with asbestos mixed with marshmallows and you probably couldn't have sued the surveyor...

Is there a recommended template for what a survey should look like?

Is there anything like a recommended check list of what the survey should verify?

Should buyers verify the exact type of professional liability insurance of the surveyor? How long after the survey can a buyer sue the surveyor if he missed something big?

Do RICS or the Law Society have any recommendations on this?

Is there any kind of more invasive inspection that can be carried out? I don't know, things like drilling into walls (then making up for it)?

Given the sums involved, I'd be more than happy to pay way more than average for a thorough, reliable survey.

PS I understand there's been a consultation, but I'm not sure what the outcome has been, and anyway that's unlikely to change much very soon.
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/stories/rics-home-survey-standard-consultation/

AdrianC

Yes, RICS have plenty of info on what a "standard" survey contains.
https://www.rics.org/uk/upholding-professional-standards/sector-standards/building-surveying/home-surveys/

...and there's plenty of advice on what the different levels contain and which is most appropriate...
https://hoa.org.uk/advice/guides-for-homeowners/i-am-buying/what-sort-of-survey-should-i-have/

Basically, it come down to you. Your knowledge and experience, your attitude to risk.

Ultimately, though, think about the process. The surveyor comes round to the house, and spends a certain amount of time - not that long, depending on which level - looking round. It's somebody else's home at this stage. He has a few hours to go round the entire property and get a picture of it based on a very surface-level look. How much do you think he can reasonably be held accountable for, based on that?

Of course he can't start lifting carpets, moving furniture, drilling holes in walls. Would you be happy for somebody to do that to a place you're trying to sell...? Remember, you aren't contractually obliged to buy at this stage...

Davesnave

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Is there any kind of more invasive inspection that can be carried out? I don't know, things like drilling into walls (then making up for it)?

In the general run of things, no. Why should there be, and how would randomly drilling holes show anything, assuming the vendor was daft enough to allow it?

If a specific issue was suspected, like the existence of adequate support in a removed section of load-bearing structure, then a localised invasive exposure might take place via a structural engineer, but that sort of thing is often resisted by vendors until the very last moment.

What a surveyor should give you is a report which will guide you in addressing the shortcomings of the house, not a guarantee that everything is hunky dory for the forseeable future.

Our last house had a serious problem which no surveyor would have picked-up on. I discovered it by accident and only realised the severity by knowing neighbours a few doors down who had it before us. I think they were the first to get it, but by now, ten years later, I'm sure it will have appeared elsewhere. This is the sort of thing surveyors' caveats should cover. It's totally unrealistic to think an inspection on a given date can reveal everything 'wrong.'

davidmcn

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Is there any kind of more invasive inspection that can be carried out? I don't know, things like drilling into walls (then making up for it)?

Yes, in theory that can be done - and is done where there is a need for it. But your average vendor of a residential property isn't going to be too impressed by requests to make holes in their walls.

SouthLondonUser

Dave, what was this serious problem you found?

Maybe those surveys I have had the chance to read (one for a previous property + a couple commissioned by friends when they bought theirs) were particularly and unrepresentatively bad, but they were so full of caveats they were basically useless (they were supposedly structural surveys).

Just to be clear, I don't expect to pay a few hundred pounds and get an iron-clad guarantee that everything will be fine for the next 50 years. Of course not. I am trying to understand what, if anything, can be done to get additional piece of mind. This doesn't mean randomly drilling holes. For example, just a few points I can think of, as a non-expert:

• the quality of the insulation in a loft can vary tremendously from loft to loft. What can be done to assess it?
• how can one determine if a house needs rewiring?
• how about pipes? Are century-old pipes particularly at risk of corroding? Is there anything that can be done to assess the condition of the pipes?
• if an extension was done in the last ten years, is there any documentation that can/should be provided to document materials used etc? Or is asking for this not customary?

These questions may sound stupid to experts in the field, but I'm just trying to understand what is possible / realistic.

Thanks.

davidmcn

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

the quality of the insulation in a loft can vary tremendously from loft to loft. What can be done to assess it?

The surveyor (or you!) can go up and have a look at the type / depth of insulation. In theory this is partly covered by the EPC anyway. It's hardly a significant point - the cost of laying some deeper insulation is pretty trivial.

how can one determine if a house needs rewiring?

You get an electrician in to tell you. A surveyor isn't likely to report much other than the general age of the visible components and any obvious defects.

how about pipes? Are century-old pipes particularly at risk of corroding?

Not particularly.

Is there anything that can be done to assess the condition of the pipes?

Again, the surveyor is likely to report on any obvious issues (e.g. if it's apparent that lead pipes are still in place), but otherwise you could get a plumber in. It's not a normal thing to do though, people generally deal with leaks if and when they happen rather than try to predict them. Slightly more commonplace are surveys of the drains (by CCTV) to check for breaks/blockages.

if an extension was done in the last ten years, is there any documentation that can/should be provided to document materials used etc? Or is asking for this not customary?

If done within the last ten years then you'd normally expect to see building regulations and/or planning consents detailing what it was meant to be built with. The materials used are likely to be reasonably obvious and reported on by the surveyors.

AdrianC

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Just to be clear, I don't expect to pay a few hundred pounds and get an iron-clad guarantee that everything will be fine for the next 50 years. Of course not. I am trying to understand what, if anything, can be done to get additional piece of mind. This doesn't mean randomly drilling holes.

Remember, most problems on properties come into two broad categories:

1. Badly built.
If it's an older property, and it's lasted this long, it won't have been. A recent extension or similar may still be, of course, but they tend to show fairly quickly via cracking or the like.

2. Badly maintained.
And, yes, this includes sheer bodgery. Rotten woodwork because of lack of paint; badly-fitted tupperware windows that don't support bays properly; damp because of damaged or blocked gutters or ground levels breaching the DPC; that sort of thing.

Both of those can be fairly quickly spotted by anybody with a vague clue.

For example, just a few points I can think of, as a non-expert:

* the quality of the insulation in a loft can vary tremendously from loft to loft. What can be done to assess it?

If you can get into the loft, and it's reasonably empty, you can look... If you can't, then you can't.

* how can one determine if a house needs rewiring?

An electrician can do a condition report, which involves using various bits of measuring equipment and removing sockets, switch plates etc. Or you can take a quick look and make an assessment. Look at the fusebox/consumer unit. How old? How neat? Look at the sockets and switches and lights you can see.

Remember, most "need to rewire" is actually driven by there not being enough sockets/lighting for modern needs and/or desires. Modern PVC wiring doesn't really degrade.

* how about pipes? Are century-old pipes particularly at risk of corroding? Is there anything that can be done to assess the condition of the pipes?

Again, mostly driven by a need/desire for bigger/better/differently-laid-out heating/bathroom/kitchen facilities. If there's still a lead pipe in from the street, you might want to change that (but don't panic, it's almost certainly totally safe - it'll be lined with decades of scale that'll stop the lead leaching into the water). Copper and plastic pipes don't really degrade.

* if an extension was done in the last ten years, is there any documentation that can/should be provided to document materials used etc? Or is asking for this not customary?

Like I said, point 1 above - "badly built"...
It will have needed to have building regs sign-off, and that will have required regular inspections through the building process. If it hasn't had, you'll need to take a view - remember, "badly built" tends to show fairly quickly. Don't think an indemnity policy says anything much - it's just financial protection against the costs of something that won't happen anyway, the council pursuing lack of paperwork. It says nothing about the actual building.

eddddy

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Maybe those surveys I have had the chance to read (one for a previous property + a couple commissioned by friends when they bought theirs) were particularly and unrepresentatively bad, but they were so full of caveats they were basically useless (they were supposedly structural surveys).

Do you just mean is that the surveyor found no problems - so there was very little useful to write?

So you should be pleased!

If a survey finds no problems, people sometimes feel it's a waste of money. But if the survey finds a problem, it could save you tens of thousands.

I guess it's like paying for insurance - if you never make a claim, it feels like a waste of money.

SouthLondonUser

eddddy wrote: »

Do you just mean is that the surveyor found no problems - so there was very little useful to write?

No, I didn't mean that. Like I said, they were so full of caveats that they seemed practically useless. Full of wordings like "it appears that" but "XYZ cannot be ruled out"; "it would seem that"... "but more extensive investigation is required" etc etc

Davesnave

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Dave, what was this serious problem you found?

Apart from the very meagre <30cm of foundations on clay soil, I found the brick courses below DPC were in commons, not hard engineering bricks. After 50 years, these were crumbling badly, but being under render and black gunk, none of this was normally visible.

I was digging out for a patio, so while I was at it, I dug further and underpinned the front corner of the house as best as I could, then knocked out the worst of the damaged bricks and replaced them. This probably staved-off further work, but by now, 20 years on, the majority I didn't do will probably have deteriorated.

The neighbour had to have the whole flank wall underpinned and all the bricks below DPC replaced. At the time, around 1990, his was obviously worse than ours.


Perhaps I should add that we knew the house and the entire estate wasn't well built before we purchased, but the wide road and huge gardens had to come from economies somewhere! We still lived there and enjoyed the benefits for 21 years and the dodgy construction cost us nothing significant.

G_M

The problem is not the surveys - it is the buyers' expectations of them.

No, you won't get caste-iron guarantees that there's nothing wrong with a building, on which you can base successful legal action against the surveyor.

But the surveyor must act in accordance with professional standards.

Compare an operation you might have in an NHS hospital. Before the operation, the consultant will talk through the likely outcomes, together with the risks. These days they'll even tell you how many patients out of 1000 (or 100) die undergoing the operation in question. And they'll then get you to sign a consent form.

The caveats in a surveyor's report are the same. He'll inspect the property and do his professional best to describe how it is constructed,together with an assessment of its condition, along with highlighting areas that might or might not require further investigation.


But to me, the survey is not primarily a mechanism to sue the surveyor for issues that arise later (though that does sometimes happen); nor is it primarily a mechanism for re-negotiating the purchase price (though that too does sometimes happen). It is a way for me to understand the overall condiionof the property, compile a 'to do' list of jobs when I move in, and understand what ongoing maintenance may/will be needed in the long term for my new home.