Was my surveyor negligent?

yllop1101

I have been in my 1930s property just coming up to 6 weeks now, and am facing about £5,000 of unanticipated costs.
I got a homebuyers survey and took the advice on board since moving in, although nothing was urgently flagged as needing doing prior. Things like replacing gutters and soffits, removing leaking asbestos waste pipe, cutting down trees in the garden. 

Nonetheless, 2 quite major issues have arisen, and I don't believe I was properly advised on them in the survey, but would appreciate others thoughts.

1. There were 2 large conifer trees in the garden, one was about 2m from the house, which we have had removed. The other we have had 'topped' for now. 
 
The survey said: "The roots from trees can affect the ground underneath foundations and the underground drainage when they seek and extract moisture. Whilst there is no obvious evidence of any damage having been caused, this could occur in the future. The trees will therefore require careful management".

The issue: We noticed when we moved in water was slow to drain from the bath and the toilet does fill a bit when flushed, but didn't think much of it. 4 weeks later we have had a waste pipe blockage, resulting in raw sewage leaking out into the garden where a cap off the waste pipe has blown due to the backup pressure. A CCTV drains survey revealed root ingress and a collapsed drain, and the whole drain pipe needs replacing. The pipe is under a concrete patio and a concrete set of steps down from the house- both of which will need removing to access the pipes underneath. 

The drains company said it was very surprising that we weren't advised to get a drains survey given the trees nearby, therefore, is the surveyor responsible for this? 

2. Leak from the roof coming through onto 1st floor ceiling (evident by a stain left on the ceiling). A roofing company have been out and noticed that the ridge tiles are all missing their cement from the roof, with the cement remains actually visible from the street, sitting in the gutter. Google street view, back in 2019, actually shows the cement on it's journey down the roof, so it has been like this for at least 2 years. The roofing company also said that the felt lining has holes in, with daylight visible through it, and has been patched with cardboard in places. 

Survey said: The roof coverings appear in acceptable condition for their age but coverings are weathered and a little uneven in places. The roof lining is torn in several areas and likely to be worn at the eaves. The felt roof covering appears in acceptable condition as no damp was found internally but coverings are weathered and a little uneven in places.

The coverings should be regularly inspected and maintained in good condition as any minor disrepair could lead to significant leakage and decay.

Condition Rating 2

As the roof coverings are in satisfactory condition, we do not consider the risk of rain penetration significant enough to warrant the costly and disruptive work of removing the existing coverings to replace the lining. Nevertheless, until this is undertaken, the roof coverings should be kept in good condition at all times.

The issue: To conclude the coverings (I.E the tiles) are in acceptable condition, to not warrant 'costly and disruptive work to replace the lining' seems conclusive yet inaccurate to the water ingress which occurred 2 weeks ago when we had heavy rain and winds. 

I would appreciate peoples thoughts and experiences as to whether the above is satisfactory in terms of survey findings given the issues we had pretty soon after moving in. Any advice on proceeding with a complaint would also be appreciated! As a first time house buyer, I just feel I wasn't adequately advised on things and am disappointed to be having tradesmen round soon after moving in, pointing out things which apparently should have been obvious to a surveyor. 

TBG01

If you had left the trees and they eventually toppled over, would you hold the surveyor responsible for not advising to get them checked by a tree surgeon?

RelievedSheff

Welcome to the world of home ownership.

user1977

Drains - they highlighted the risk from the trees, and reported (I presume accurately?) there was no obvious evidence of damage. They don't need to recommend you get a specialist survey if you want to find out more, otherwise it will end up like some surveys where you have a list of a dozen further reports they've recommended.

You might have more of a case with the roof, but it depends what would actually have been apparent during their inspection, bearing in mind the surveyor is normally just telling you what they're able to see from ground level and from within the loft (e.g. was the stain on the ceiling there at the time? Had it been raining?), whereas the roofers will have a better idea once they're up there. I presume things like the cardboard patching to the felt wouldn't have been noticeable within the parameters of the survey.

yllop1101

user1977 said:

Drains - they highlighted the risk from the trees, and reported (I presume accurately?) there was no obvious evidence of damage. They don't need to recommend you get a specialist survey if you want to find out more, otherwise it will end up like some surveys where you have a list of a dozen further reports they've recommended.

You might have more of a case with the roof, but it depends what would actually have been apparent during their inspection, bearing in mind the surveyor is normally just telling you what they're able to see from ground level and from within the loft (e.g. was the stain on the ceiling there at the time? Had it been raining?), whereas the roofers will have a better idea once they're up there. I presume things like the cardboard patching to the felt wouldn't have been noticeable within the parameters of the survey.

I wondered if the slow draining water may have been an indicator of issues, but agreed aside from that, no obvious evidence, just something a specialist survey would have flagged, which whilst I appreciate in many cases can be over zealous in this instance would have been helpful! 

The ridge tile damage was evident from the road, you can actually see the pile of cement in the gutter in their photo intending to show the leaky/sloping gutters. Otherwise, it was dry when they did the survey so nothing would have been evident inside. 

theartfullodger

Caveat emptor

leypt1

What have you got to lose from making a complaint? The surveyor missed chunks of cement missing from your roof, I'd say it's worth at least pointing this out to them and seeing what they say?

I don't think "caveat emptor" is an argument against doing this - you did actually make (some of) the right enquiries before buying, and you're looking to take action against your surveyor rather than the vendor.

Also, the standard gripe with surveyors who just recommend loads of extra surveys is that they're only doing it as a back covering exercise.......but it then follows that in this instance they did not adequately cover their backs! If they'd made the recommendation you could have considered whether to go ahead with it, but they didn't, so you had no inkling that this could be something to consider.

Tracet74

Is the property a house?  If so, as part of a HomeBuyer, they should raise any available inspection chamber covers and check the inspection chamber at a minimum.  Have the drainage company advised if there is any root infiltration at that point as it would have given a very clearly indication of any issues.

Missing mortar should also have been reported, which then raises the question of what Condition Rating they would have given the guttering as it should be 2 at a minimum, i.e. debris which needs clearing.

yllop1101

leypt1 said:

What have you got to lose from making a complaint? The surveyor missed chunks of cement missing from your roof, I'd say it's worth at least pointing this out to them and seeing what they say?

I don't think "caveat emptor" is an argument against doing this - you did actually make (some of) the right enquiries before buying, and you're looking to take action against your surveyor rather than the vendor.

Also, the standard gripe with surveyors who just recommend loads of extra surveys is that they're only doing it as a back covering exercise.......but it then follows that in this instance they did not adequately cover their backs! If they'd made the recommendation you could have considered whether to go ahead with it, but they didn't, so you had no inkling that this could be something to consider.

You make the exact points I was considering myself. With regards to Caveat Emptor, what's the point in paying a professional surveyor?

I reference points 2, 3 and 4 here (the irony being the costs I face average the amount many face when they don't get a survey

-https://www.coseyhomes.co.uk/news/4-important-reasons-home-buyers-get-survey

In a house I pulled out of before this one the surveyor recommended a damp survey, I got one, found things I didn't like/couldn't afford to fix, and pulled out. So, I am the type of person who takes the surveys seriously and would probably instruct a specialist where recommended (not for backside covering reasons on every item). 

yllop1101

Tracet74 said:

Is the property a house?  If so, as part of a HomeBuyer, they should raise any available inspection chamber covers and check the inspection chamber at a minimum.  Have the drainage company advised if there is any root infiltration at that point as it would have given a very clearly indication of any issues.

Missing mortar should also have been reported, which then raises the question of what Condition Rating they would have given the guttering as it should be 2 at a minimum, i.e. debris which needs clearing.

It is a house yes, but I don't believe it has an inspection chamber as its part of a terrace.

The roof was given a 2, which I didn't expect to mean 'it's basically going to need fixing as soon as it rains as water will be coming in', or else I would have negotiated the 3k for the roof off the cost of the house! 

davilown

yllop1101 said:

leypt1 said:

What have you got to lose from making a complaint? The surveyor missed chunks of cement missing from your roof, I'd say it's worth at least pointing this out to them and seeing what they say?

I don't think "caveat emptor" is an argument against doing this - you did actually make (some of) the right enquiries before buying, and you're looking to take action against your surveyor rather than the vendor.

Also, the standard gripe with surveyors who just recommend loads of extra surveys is that they're only doing it as a back covering exercise.......but it then follows that in this instance they did not adequately cover their backs! If they'd made the recommendation you could have considered whether to go ahead with it, but they didn't, so you had no inkling that this could be something to consider.

You make the exact points I was considering myself. With regards to Caveat Emptor, what's the point in paying a professional surveyor?

I reference points 2, 3 and 4 here (the irony being the costs I face average the amount many face when they don't get a survey

-https://www.coseyhomes.co.uk/news/4-important-reasons-home-buyers-get-survey

In a house I pulled out of before this one the surveyor recommended a damp survey, I got one, found things I didn't like/couldn't afford to fix, and pulled out. So, I am the type of person who takes the surveys seriously and would probably instruct a specialist where recommended (not for backside covering reasons on every item). 

Was the damp survey done by a ‘professional’ damp sales person?