What to do if the surveyor failed to pick up issues?

greatcrested

The damp surveyor may have some liability, but it is unlikely.

He used a so-called 'damp meter' on the walls which showed no damp (and which I believe are indeed not damp).

He used CCTV to access some below floor areas, but this would have been restricted to where he could gain access. If you read his report carefully, I'm sure you'll find some phrase like "so far as we were able to investigate" or "we limited in what areas we could access, but these areas showed no signs....".

As said earlier:

You have to remember they are surveying someone else's property, they can start drilling holes, ripping up tiles.

Clearly a misprint- should read "can't"!

But if the reprt clearly states that a full investigation took place, and that no damp was found, and there are no caveats or eclusion clauses, then you might have a case against the damp surveyor.

You would need a second surveyor to write a report to support any legal claim.

917700

greatcrested said:

The damp surveyor may have some liability, but it is unlikely.

He used a so-called 'damp meter' on the walls which showed no damp (and which I believe are indeed not damp).

He used CCTV to access some below floor areas, but this would have been restricted to where he could gain access. If you read his report carefully, I'm sure you'll find some phrase like "so far as we were able to investigate" or "we limited in what areas we could access, but these areas showed no signs....".

As said earlier:

You have to remember they are surveying someone else's property, they can start drilling holes, ripping up tiles.

Clearly a misprint- should read "can't"!

But if the reprt clearly states that a full investigation took place, and that no damp was found, and there are no caveats or eclusion clauses, then you might have a case against the damp surveyor.

You would need a second surveyor to write a report to support any legal claim.

Thanks for your advice. After removing more plaster boards today, I think the damp issues can be easily fixed now. 

Probably it’s not worth to spend money to blame the damp surveyor now. But I  want to share my experience to other buyers. 

Thrugelmir

917700 said:

greatcrested said:

The damp surveyor may have some liability, but it is unlikely.

He used a so-called 'damp meter' on the walls which showed no damp (and which I believe are indeed not damp).

He used CCTV to access some below floor areas, but this would have been restricted to where he could gain access. If you read his report carefully, I'm sure you'll find some phrase like "so far as we were able to investigate" or "we limited in what areas we could access, but these areas showed no signs....".

As said earlier:

You have to remember they are surveying someone else's property, they can start drilling holes, ripping up tiles.

Clearly a misprint- should read "can't"!

But if the reprt clearly states that a full investigation took place, and that no damp was found, and there are no caveats or eclusion clauses, then you might have a case against the damp surveyor.

You would need a second surveyor to write a report to support any legal claim.

Probably it’s not worth to spend money to blame the damp surveyor now. But I  want to share my experience to other buyers. 

Like buying a used car privately.  Vendors are rarely honest about everything. 

greatcrested

917700 said:

greatcrested said:

The damp surveyor may have some liability, but it is unlikely.

He used a so-called 'damp meter' on the walls which showed no damp (and which I believe are indeed not damp).

He used CCTV to access some below floor areas, but this would have been restricted to where he could gain access. If you read his report carefully, I'm sure you'll find some phrase like "so far as we were able to investigate" or "we limited in what areas we could access, but these areas showed no signs....".

As said earlier:

You have to remember they are surveying someone else's property, they can start drilling holes, ripping up tiles.

Clearly a misprint- should read "can't"!

But if the reprt clearly states that a full investigation took place, and that no damp was found, and there are no caveats or eclusion clauses, then you might have a case against the damp surveyor.

You would need a second surveyor to write a report to support any legal claim.

Thanks for your advice. After removing more plaster boards today, I think the damp issues can be easily fixed now. 

Probably it’s not worth to spend money to blame the damp surveyor now. But I  want to share my experience to other buyers. 

917700 said:

greatcrested said:

The damp surveyor may have some liability, but it is unlikely.

He used a so-called 'damp meter' on the walls which showed no damp (and which I believe are indeed not damp).

He used CCTV to access some below floor areas, but this would have been restricted to where he could gain access. If you read his report carefully, I'm sure you'll find some phrase like "so far as we were able to investigate" or "we limited in what areas we could access, but these areas showed no signs....".

As said earlier:

You have to remember they are surveying someone else's property, they can start drilling holes, ripping up tiles.

Clearly a misprint- should read "can't"!

But if the reprt clearly states that a full investigation took place, and that no damp was found, and there are no caveats or eclusion clauses, then you might have a case against the damp surveyor.

You would need a second surveyor to write a report to support any legal claim.

Thanks for your advice. After removing more plaster boards today, I think the damp issues can be easily fixed now.

It would be interesting to know what you found to be the cause.

917700

Thrugelmir said:

917700 said:

greatcrested said:

The damp surveyor may have some liability, but it is unlikely.

He used a so-called 'damp meter' on the walls which showed no damp (and which I believe are indeed not damp).

He used CCTV to access some below floor areas, but this would have been restricted to where he could gain access. If you read his report carefully, I'm sure you'll find some phrase like "so far as we were able to investigate" or "we limited in what areas we could access, but these areas showed no signs....".

As said earlier:

You have to remember they are surveying someone else's property, they can start drilling holes, ripping up tiles.

Clearly a misprint- should read "can't"!

But if the reprt clearly states that a full investigation took place, and that no damp was found, and there are no caveats or eclusion clauses, then you might have a case against the damp surveyor.

You would need a second surveyor to write a report to support any legal claim.

Probably it’s not worth to spend money to blame the damp surveyor now. But I  want to share my experience to other buyers. 

Like buying a used car privately.  Vendors are rarely honest about everything. 

This is true, especially when buying an ex rental property. 

The vendor provide a satisfied electric certificate to my solicitor. However, I had another electric test last week, the overall condition is unsatisfied and the electrician suggested a full rewire. 

I believe the previous owner lied on many things. I would not be surprised if more issues come up during the renovation 

917700

greatcrested said:

917700 said:

greatcrested said:

The damp surveyor may have some liability, but it is unlikely.

He used a so-called 'damp meter' on the walls which showed no damp (and which I believe are indeed not damp).

He used CCTV to access some below floor areas, but this would have been restricted to where he could gain access. If you read his report carefully, I'm sure you'll find some phrase like "so far as we were able to investigate" or "we limited in what areas we could access, but these areas showed no signs....".

As said earlier:

You have to remember they are surveying someone else's property, they can start drilling holes, ripping up tiles.

Clearly a misprint- should read "can't"!

But if the reprt clearly states that a full investigation took place, and that no damp was found, and there are no caveats or eclusion clauses, then you might have a case against the damp surveyor.

You would need a second surveyor to write a report to support any legal claim.

Thanks for your advice. After removing more plaster boards today, I think the damp issues can be easily fixed now. 

Probably it’s not worth to spend money to blame the damp surveyor now. But I  want to share my experience to other buyers. 

917700 said:

greatcrested said:

The damp surveyor may have some liability, but it is unlikely.

He used a so-called 'damp meter' on the walls which showed no damp (and which I believe are indeed not damp).

He used CCTV to access some below floor areas, but this would have been restricted to where he could gain access. If you read his report carefully, I'm sure you'll find some phrase like "so far as we were able to investigate" or "we limited in what areas we could access, but these areas showed no signs....".

As said earlier:

You have to remember they are surveying someone else's property, they can start drilling holes, ripping up tiles.

Clearly a misprint- should read "can't"!

But if the reprt clearly states that a full investigation took place, and that no damp was found, and there are no caveats or eclusion clauses, then you might have a case against the damp surveyor.

You would need a second surveyor to write a report to support any legal claim.

Thanks for your advice. After removing more plaster boards today, I think the damp issues can be easily fixed now.

It would be interesting to know what you found to be the cause.

I posted another picture. The kitchen layout was probably changed in the past and there are some pipes behind the stud wall. 

As you can see the most wet timber stud area is below the end of the pipe.