Problem with house we've just moved in to - any avenues?

GreyKnight1811

Hi, I'm after some advice following a problem that's raised its head in the house that we've just this week moved into.

We have purchased a grade II listed timber frame cottage which has undergone extensive renovation within the past 10 years. It is extremely well presented and has had most of the major issues resolved such as various timbers replaced, the roof stripped and replaced, underfloor heating installed throughout the ground floor and most notably a single storey rear extension built 4 years ago which is in keeping with the rest of the property in that it is an oak timber frame with infill panels and a rolled lead flat roof. The property looks stunning and we're lucky to have secured it I think.

Prior to purchase we had a survey carried out by a local firm that claims to specilaise in listed properties. When I enquired as to their services they advised me that unless I was planning structural changes to the building they would not recommend a full structural building survey, but instead they offered what they called a "Major Elements" survey which was better than a Homebuyer report, but not a full building survey. I agreed to this (taking their professional advice) and the survey was carried out at a cost of £700. The survey came back with essentially no major issues reported, the property was in good condition and there was nothing that needed immediate attention.

Fast forward to this week, we moved in on Monday and everything seemed fine. On Wednesday there was quite a lot of rain and wind and on Thursday morning I went into the living room (which is within the new rear extension) and noticed an L shaped line of damp on the ceiling and also a wet patch glistening on one of the oak beams at the top of the internal wall. Nothing terribly disastrous, no puddles on the floor or anything, but a clear leak none the less. I contacted my insurance company who said that it wasn't covered, even on the home emergency add-on I have, so I've had to try and find a local roofer who can come and take a look, but being a Friday of course nobody has replied...

In the meantime I discussed the issue on another forum I'm a member of and one person on there got in touch to say he was a lead roofer by trade and I could call him to discuss if I liked. I did so and I also sent him some photos of the flat roof and the water damage inside. He took a look and told me that the roof was not fit for purpose and had been installed incorrectly. He said that the fall on the roof was insufficient for a rolled lead roof and that capiliary action would cause water ingress all over the place. His opinion was that the roof needed replacing at a likely cost of thousands of pounds. He also said that the roof did not meet Lead Association standards. (This was all without any likelihood of him doing the work as he lives hundreds of miles away, he was just giving his honest opinion).

I checked in my pack of legal documents that my solicitor sent during the buying process to see what I could find out about the roof. I can see that the planning application approval letter for the extension stated that the roof needed to be lead covered and meet Lead Association standards as part of the criteria for the application being passed.

So, I am left in the situation that I have a house with a leaking roof which the surveyor did not pick up on and which apparently does not actually meet the criteria layed out in its original planning permission application from 5 years ago. It's frustrating that in a 350 year old house it's the 5 year old part that's knackered!

What I need to know is whether I have any avenues here other than it being exclusively my problem? I find it hard to believe that failure to comply with the planning requirements is my fault just because I now own the house, but I'm fully ready to accept that this is the case due to our ridiculous legal system in this country.

Any advice that anybody could offer would be appreciated.

many thanks

Graham

Davesnave

GreyKnight1811 wrote: »

So, I am left in the situation that I have a house with a leaking roof which the surveyor did not pick up on and which apparently does not actually meet the criteria layed out in its original planning permission application from 5 years ago. It's frustrating that in a 350 year old house it's the 5 year old part that's knackered!

What I need to know is whether I have any avenues here other than it being exclusively my problem?

The planning application set out the standard to be achieved, but it would have been the building control dept who would have checked what was built, probably with the conservation officer's input too.

So is there building regulations/conservation officer inspection sign offs for this work? Your solicitor would have been the one who needed to check these existed.

As to the recent survey, you should complain to the firm involved. It might be better to get an expert's opinion in writing from an on-site visit before you do this. Surveyors have professional insurance, but you'll appreciate no one here can judge whether they'll readily admit to an error or agree that the work fell within the remit of their survey.

AdrianC

Is there a warranty on this new-ish roof...?

GreyKnight1811

Davesnave wrote: »

The planning application set out the standard to be achieved, but it would have been the building control dept who would have checked what was built, probably with the conservation officer's input too.

So is there building regulations/conservation officer inspection sign offs for this work? Your solicitor would have been the one who needed to check these existed.

As to the recent survey, you should complain to the firm involved. It might be better to get an expert's opinion in writing from an on-site visit before you do this. Surveyors have professional insurance, but you'll appreciate no one here can judge whether they'll readily admit to an error or agree that the work fell within the remit of their survey.

Hi, thanks. Yes there is a building regs cert for the extension, I have a copy. However if the firm that carried out the cert didn't really know what constitutes a good lead roof and what doesn't then what's the point of building regs? I mean the person that evaluates the work can't possibly know everything about what they are looking at can they?

Now that I have observed the leak on the wooden beam and the mark it's left I can see historical evidence of previous leaks elsewhere on the beam (similar marks). I didn't know what I was looking at before, but the surveyor should have!

GreyKnight1811

AdrianC wrote: »

Is there a warranty on this new-ish roof...?

That was asked as part of the routine questionnaire that the seller has to fill out and the answer was no.

Davesnave

GreyKnight1811 wrote: »

Hi, thanks. Yes there is a building regs cert for the extension, I have a copy. However if the firm that carried out the cert didn't really know what constitutes a good lead roof and what doesn't then what's the point of building regs? I mean the person that evaluates the work can't possibly know everything about what they are looking at can they?

Now that I have observed the leak on the wooden beam and the mark it's left I can see historical evidence of previous leaks elsewhere on the beam (similar marks). I didn't know what I was looking at before, but the surveyor should have!

OK so we've established that the right boxes were ticked at the building stage.

One might hope that, between them, the conservation officer and the BCO would have known what was required to meet specs properly, but having had some experience with both, I know that their abilities and experience varies.

So your solicitor is in the clear, but your surveyor might not be, depending on whether it could have been expected of them to pick this up. A suitably qualified lead roofer's report would probably help in claiming from them, if this is the route you wish to go down and they don't admit to any liability.

AdrianC

What's the survey's exact wording for the roof in question?

GreyKnight1811

AdrianC wrote: »

What's the survey's exact wording for the roof in question?

The survey only mentions the flat roof in minor detail, most of the survey talks about the much older main roof on the cottage.

With regard to the part about the flat roof:-

"The single storey extension to the rear has a flat roof with a shallow fall to both eaves. The covering is lead with "roll top" joints. On the roof in the location of the hallway and toilet below there are three roof lights set at an angle to drain onto the roof. The roof lights are set on upstands and dressed over to for a seal and drip. All the roof structures appear to be in satisfactory order and would have been replaced, upgraded or repaired at the time of the refurbishment"

The roof is not mentioned again in the report.

AdrianC

So there y'go. The surveyor's opinion was that it appeared in satisfactory order. And he stated that it would've been installed fairly recently.

For you to get anywhere against the surveyor for negligence, you're going to have to show how - within the normal bounds of a survey - he really should've picked up on it having been badly installed. You have no contract with the installer, and no warranty on their work, so that's a dead end.

I think you're picking the tab up yourself, tbh.

G_M

I imagine much will depend on the manner in which the roof was 'not fit for purpose and had been installed incorrectly.'. Would that have been visible to the surveyor (ladders/access needed?), and would that have been the cause of the leak.


I note the survey also refers to ' a shallow fall to both eaves.'.It may be that that is the reason for the leak. If so, the survey wording hints at the issue which may be a get-out for the surveyor (though it is no more than a hint...!)


I agree with others that the legal aspect appears to have been covered off, as was the original sign-off of the work, so the survey is the only possible route to attribute blame. To do so would require a written report clearly stating

a) what the cause of the leak is and
b) that the cause should have reasonably been identified by the survey


I suspect a 2nd surveyor's report (just focussing on the roof in question) as well as a specialist roofer's report may be needed.

GreyKnight1811

G_M wrote: »

I imagine much will depend on the manner in which the roof was 'not fit for purpose and had been installed incorrectly.'. Would that have been visible to the surveyor (ladders/access needed?), and would that have been the cause of the leak.


I note the survey also refers to ' a shallow fall to both eaves.'.It may be that that is the reason for the leak. If so, the survey wording hints at the issue which may be a get-out for the surveyor (though it is no more than a hint...!)


I agree with others that the legal aspect appears to have been covered off, as was the original sign-off of the work, so the survey is the only possible route to attribute blame. To do so would require a written report clearly stating

a) what the cause of the leak is and
b) that the cause should have reasonably been identified by the survey


I suspect a 2nd surveyor's report (just focussing on the roof in question) as well as a specialist roofer's report may be needed.

The thing is, it was raining on the day of the survey (this is in the report) so I guess he would have expected to see any leakages if they were there. However all he did was photograph the flat roof using a camera on a pole. In actual fact he could EASILY have accessed the roof without the need for a ladder because you can simply step out onto it from one of the bedroom windows.

I've just been and applied some Thompson's Emergency Roof Sealant to the most obvious area where there could be an issue, I'll see if it helps next time it rains. Like you say I think it will be a case of saving up for a proper repair, or realistically probably a complete replacement at some stage. It's annoying that being a listed building the flat roof has to be lead (I think) as I'd be much happier with an EPDM rubber roof.