Survey results - rewiring and new boiler and heating system required

pjs493

Section62 said:

pjs493 said:

The report clearly states that it is dangerous and needs replacing. I’m not sure why this is being deliberated when I’ve already stated what the report says.

It is because some of the people on this forum have seen dozens, perhaps hundreds, of surveys - in some cases in a professional capacity - and know that the phrasing being used isn't the kind that surveyors normally use.

Surveyors aren't usually qualified to carry out electrical safety inspections, which is why they would normally recommend getting a report done by a professional with suitable qualifications.  The things they have highlighted (e.g. lack of 'trip' and old-style sockets) don't - by themselves - make an installation dangerous.  E.g. old-style (BS546 round-pin) sockets can still be purchased and installed in specific cases.  You wouldn't expect a surveyor to know whether an individual BS546 socket was installed in accordance with the regulations - it would need inspection and testing o verify this.

So it follows that a surveyor looking at (say) a BS546 socket and saying "That's dangerous" is not necessarily doing so from a position of professional competence.

Short of sharing the over 100 page report in a public forum I can’t see what will make people accept what is written has been done professionally and with all the expected clauses and caveats. The surveyor has highlighted a number of things that are obviously dangerous and stated that in his opinion a full rewire will be required to make the house safe. Then advises to get an electrician in ASAP to make safe and to assess the extent of what needs doing. But the photographs do show a considerable level of safety concerns that even the untrained eye could realise are not suitable. 

TheJP

pjs493 said:

Section62 said:

pjs493 said:

The report clearly states that it is dangerous and needs replacing. I’m not sure why this is being deliberated when I’ve already stated what the report says.

It is because some of the people on this forum have seen dozens, perhaps hundreds, of surveys - in some cases in a professional capacity - and know that the phrasing being used isn't the kind that surveyors normally use.

Surveyors aren't usually qualified to carry out electrical safety inspections, which is why they would normally recommend getting a report done by a professional with suitable qualifications.  The things they have highlighted (e.g. lack of 'trip' and old-style sockets) don't - by themselves - make an installation dangerous.  E.g. old-style (BS546 round-pin) sockets can still be purchased and installed in specific cases.  You wouldn't expect a surveyor to know whether an individual BS546 socket was installed in accordance with the regulations - it would need inspection and testing o verify this.

So it follows that a surveyor looking at (say) a BS546 socket and saying "That's dangerous" is not necessarily doing so from a position of professional competence.

Short of sharing the over 100 page report in a public forum I can’t see what will make people accept what is written has been done professionally and with all the expected clauses and caveats. The surveyor has highlighted a number of things that are obviously dangerous and stated that in his opinion a full rewire will be required to make the house safe. Then advises to get an electrician in ASAP to make safe and to assess the extent of what needs doing. But the photographs do show a considerable level of safety concerns that even the untrained eye could realise are not suitable. 

A new boiler top range is £3k-£5k more £3k. A quick google search on the average cost of a full rewire of a house in the UK is £5k. This shows that potentially you negotiate £10k for works and highlights how surveyors pluck costs out by licking their fingers and sticking them in the air. They aren't experts in the related fields more risk assessors.

Out of interest, are you a FTB? 

BarelySentientAI

pjs493 said:

Section62 said:

pjs493 said:

The report clearly states that it is dangerous and needs replacing. I’m not sure why this is being deliberated when I’ve already stated what the report says.

It is because some of the people on this forum have seen dozens, perhaps hundreds, of surveys - in some cases in a professional capacity - and know that the phrasing being used isn't the kind that surveyors normally use.

Surveyors aren't usually qualified to carry out electrical safety inspections, which is why they would normally recommend getting a report done by a professional with suitable qualifications.  The things they have highlighted (e.g. lack of 'trip' and old-style sockets) don't - by themselves - make an installation dangerous.  E.g. old-style (BS546 round-pin) sockets can still be purchased and installed in specific cases.  You wouldn't expect a surveyor to know whether an individual BS546 socket was installed in accordance with the regulations - it would need inspection and testing o verify this.

So it follows that a surveyor looking at (say) a BS546 socket and saying "That's dangerous" is not necessarily doing so from a position of professional competence.

Short of sharing the over 100 page report in a public forum I can’t see what will make people accept what is written has been done professionally and with all the expected clauses and caveats. The surveyor has highlighted a number of things that are obviously dangerous and stated that in his opinion a full rewire will be required to make the house safe. Then advises to get an electrician in ASAP to make safe and to assess the extent of what needs doing. But the photographs do show a considerable level of safety concerns that even the untrained eye could realise are not suitable. 

Ah, so it was exactly what we said.

Surveyor went "oh, this looks a bit odd/old, get a suitable expert to look at it".

The "untrained eye" thinking it is not suitable does not make it so.  On that matter, the surveyor's opinion matters not one bit more than yours.

Same point stands - if you're planning on negotiating based on things that the "untrained eye" could clearly see previously, I wouldn't expect the vendor to shift.

Scotbot

BarelySentientAI said:

pjs493 said:

Section62 said:

pjs493 said:

The report clearly states that it is dangerous and needs replacing. I’m not sure why this is being deliberated when I’ve already stated what the report says.

It is because some of the people on this forum have seen dozens, perhaps hundreds, of surveys - in some cases in a professional capacity - and know that the phrasing being used isn't the kind that surveyors normally use.

Surveyors aren't usually qualified to carry out electrical safety inspections, which is why they would normally recommend getting a report done by a professional with suitable qualifications.  The things they have highlighted (e.g. lack of 'trip' and old-style sockets) don't - by themselves - make an installation dangerous.  E.g. old-style (BS546 round-pin) sockets can still be purchased and installed in specific cases.  You wouldn't expect a surveyor to know whether an individual BS546 socket was installed in accordance with the regulations - it would need inspection and testing o verify this.

So it follows that a surveyor looking at (say) a BS546 socket and saying "That's dangerous" is not necessarily doing so from a position of professional competence.

Short of sharing the over 100 page report in a public forum I can’t see what will make people accept what is written has been done professionally and with all the expected clauses and caveats. The surveyor has highlighted a number of things that are obviously dangerous and stated that in his opinion a full rewire will be required to make the house safe. Then advises to get an electrician in ASAP to make safe and to assess the extent of what needs doing. But the photographs do show a considerable level of safety concerns that even the untrained eye could realise are not suitable. 

Ah, so it was exactly what we said.

Surveyor went "oh, this looks a bit odd/old, get a suitable expert to look at it".

The "untrained eye" thinking it is not suitable does not make it so.  On that matter, the surveyor's opinion matters not one bit more than yours.

Same point stands - if you're planning on negotiating based on things that the "untrained eye" could clearly see previously, I wouldn't expect the vendor to shift.

Depends on how much the vendor wants to sell, how close the offer was to asking and what% of the offer price 10k is. 

Section62

pjs493 said:

....There are no features that conservation would be interested in in the loft because the roof had collapsed in before the building was refurbished for occupation, so no original features remain up there. It’s all smoke and mirrors to make it look original.

Listing isn't about preserving the original, it is about 'telling the story' of the building.  Most listed buildings have had multiple alterations and changes made over the decades and centuries.  What the conservation oficer will be interested in is how the original structure and alterations come together to tell that building's story.

Some conservation officers might view the replacement roof structure as a very important part of the story, and consequently get twitchy about anything being done which affects it.  The key point being that the listing, and the need for LB consent, applies to the whole building (and curtilage), not just the 'original' bits.  On the plus side, if the structure is all new then there may be less concern about the structural adequacy if you want to use it for light storage.

pjs493 said:

The lease and listed status does prevent any changes to add heat pumps etc that can be visible so potentially something underground would be approved, but I expect that would be more expensive than a new gas boiler. I don’t think I’d qualify for any government schemes, but can’t be sure.

Listed status doesn't prevent all changes, it just means applying for LB consent and having a proposal the conservation officer can agree with.

And leases can be altered.

The economics of replacing the boiler with a different type are a different matter, but don't rule it out on the basis of the listing and lease alone.

RAS

I know a longhouse which was re-roofed with tiles and corrugated iron on some parts, whilst the thatch on the rest remained half decent. That's how it was roofed when it was listed,

When the new owner decided to re-roof the thatched part, they sought permission to replace the tiles and corrugated iron with thatch which was in keeping with the roofing that would have been used for most of the building's life. The application was refused, initially and at appeal on the grounds it deviated from the listing.

On the other hand the interior of my childhood home had been massively altered. The end wall of the original (probably pre-Reformation) long-house has been demolished and the room incorporated into the Victorian extension. The whole of that has been turned from farm buildings to residential. Nay problem!

pjs493

RAS said:

I know a longhouse which was re-roofed with tiles and corrugated iron on some parts, whilst the thatch on the rest remained half decent. That's how it was roofed when it was listed,

When the new owner decided to re-roof the thatched part, they sought permission to replace the tiles and corrugated iron with thatch which was in keeping with the roofing that would have been used for most of the building's life. The application was refused, initially and at appeal on the grounds it deviated from the listing.

On the other hand the interior of my childhood home had been massively altered. The end wall of the original (probably pre-Reformation) long-house has been demolished and the room incorporated into the Victorian extension. The whole of that has been turned from farm buildings to residential. Nay problem!

I know from personal experience that one conservation officer can make a completely different decision from the next. My parents have had this with changes to listed buildings in the past. One officer came out and refused a staircase to the loft to turn it into an attic room, an appeal was lodged and the staircase was approved. I know another example where someone asked permission to repair the roof on a barn that was listed and they were told no, in other words the officer would rather the building become a ruin than repairs being done. Again, this was overturned on appeal.