Internal Support Wall

GDB2222

The council may have other records that haven’t been digitised. I would call BC.

TELLIT01

Interesting situation as we have been in our house 34 years, the dividing wall was removed before we bought the house and there has been no movement.

Woolsery

GDB2222 said:

The council may have other records that haven’t been digitised. I would call BC.

If the OP knows there is nothing on-line, then asking in a broad sense for any records going back before 2002 will be OK to avoid closing the idemnity route.

It's really the purchaser's call to decide if investigative surgery is essential and the OP's to consider whether to allow it. Personally, I would if the transaction looks to be threatened, but in their position I'd not give it prominence.

Section62

TELLIT01 said:

Interesting situation as we have been in our house 34 years, the dividing wall was removed before we bought the house and there has been no movement.

You won't necessarily see movement.  People imagine that huge cracks will appear long before any structural failure (lots of movie-based experience) but in reality surface finishes can mask the movement happening beneath.

The presence of cracks often indicates movement of some kind, the absence of cracks doesn't disprove movement.

Also, movement can be a very slow process and can start and stop.  Something like the rotting of the end of a wooden beam that stuart45 referred to is a classic case - there can be all kinds of symptoms (or none) and you can look at a beam in an advanced stage of decay and wonder how it is supporting its own weight, let alone the load it is meant to be supporting, but somehow it does.

Then all it takes is a 'trigger' event and 'bang'.

FaceHead

I would go with the hard-ish ball response of 'the modification predates our taking ownership of the property in 1993. The buyer should rely on their own investigation.'

An indemnity insurance is a waste of everyone's time and money. The buyer is unlikely to care enough to pay for a structural engineer do the intrusive investigation and then have it made good. It's clearly a nervous buyer who has been spooked by a surveyor who wants to cover themselves, and they need a push towards the pragmatic answer of if it's been fine for 29 years, it'll be fine for the next 29 years they live there.

Woolsery

FaceHead said:

An indemnity insurance is a waste of everyone's time and money.

Of course, but the OP is seeking a sale, so if it facilitates that....

Section62

FaceHead said:

I would go with the hard-ish ball response of 'the modification predates our taking ownership of the property in 1993. The buyer should rely on their own investigation.'

An indemnity insurance is a waste of everyone's time and money. The buyer is unlikely to care enough to pay for a structural engineer do the intrusive investigation and then have it made good. It's clearly a nervous buyer who has been spooked by a surveyor who wants to cover themselves, and they need a push towards the pragmatic answer of if it's been fine for 29 years, it'll be fine for the next 29 years they live there.

That's not how it works.  And to tell them that would be misleading them.  A professional shouldn't do that.

stuart45

Surveyors get a fair bit of stock whatever they do. If they don't pick on a removed wall without regs as happened to the OP they get slaughtered, and if they do their job and pick it up they are accused of scare mongering.
From the buyers point of view they only have someone's word that it's been fine for all this time. Also if they want to sell in a few years time they could have the same problem.