Seller declared walls knocked down were non-load bearing... should I drop this? (no pun intended)

Albermarle

Of course I know there is no way of knowing definitively unless I bring in a structural engineer but unfortunately I don't have spare funds for this.

Slightly off topic, but this comment in the OP is concerning.

If the OP is worried about the cost of a SE, then they seem maybe  a bit unprepared financially for buying a property.
Often there can be lots of expected and unexpected costs when buying a house and first moving in.

stuart45

Looking at those plans I'd say it's quite possible those walls weren't load bearing and could've been removed without going through Building Control.
As you've already spent a fair bit on the house, I'd say in this case it would be worth spending a bit more. 

fisher66

Do you know if the walls in the floor above are made of brick or if they are stud walls? That would make a big difference in my opinion.  What is the age of the house? Modern houses are more likely to have stud dividing walls on upstairs floors built on top of the flooring, older houses may have brick dividing walls which would likely need support from below.

Section62

fisher66 said:

Do you know if the walls in the floor above are made of brick or if they are stud walls? That would make a big difference in my opinion.  What is the age of the house? Modern houses are more likely to have stud dividing walls on upstairs floors built on top of the flooring, older houses may have brick dividing walls which would likely need support from below.

It doesn't make a difference.  It is one of the myths spread by the TV home makeover shows that you can tell whether a wall is structural by knocking on it.

Stud walls can be structural, brick walls can be non-structural.  And the load from a 'brick' wall on a first floor can be supported by structure in the space between the ground floor ceiling and the floor of the first-floor, so won't necessarily need a structural wall on the floor below it.

Grumpy_chap

justpassingthrough24 said:

Around 6 months ago, the seller knocked down three internal walls on the ground floor of the house I'm purchasing to make it open plan. 

Why did the seller do all this work to refurb the property, only to then decide to move after a few months, barely letting the dust settle?

Was it a long-time owner who has a proper, genuine reason (such as work relocation) which forced the sale?

Was it a "flipper" who bought the house at auction, did a load of work cheaply and finish to look superficially good but without a care for the longevity of the upgrade works?

stuart45

It was quite common, even up to the 70's, to use masonry partition walls built on a sole plate, as Section62 explains. Studwork or masonry isn't a reliable guide.

MikeJXE

It’s fair to say the joists take the shortest span being 10’ and 5’5”  so I doubt the walls were load bearing but

What would concern me is the walls that separated the kitchen from the dining being removed unless an rsj has been installed 

That is the point where the joists meet and need to be supported 

Section62

stuart45 said:

Looking at those plans I'd say it's quite possible those walls weren't load bearing and could've been removed without going through Building Control.
As you've already spent a fair bit on the house, I'd say in this case it would be worth spending a bit more. 

The bit that would concern me is the 'L' shaped pillar that has been created by removing the wall between the kitchen and the dining area, and making the opening between the kitchen and 'reception room'.  The external rear wall seems to sit directly above the 'L', so the issue is how that first-floor external wall is supported, and whether the 'L' is helping to provide that support, and if so, whether if has sufficient lateral stability now that walls on either side of it have gone.

I'd also want to know the history of the house and whether the ground floor has been extended to the rear, or if the first-floor extenal wall was always above an 'internal' wall on the ground floor.  Gut-feel, based only on the floor plans, I wonder whether the rear of the ground floor is made up of two extensions done at different times, which would further complicate the structural situation.

I agree with the need for a SE to have a look, but not sure they will be able to add much without seeing the structure.

stuart45

Section62 said:

stuart45 said:

Looking at those plans I'd say it's quite possible those walls weren't load bearing and could've been removed without going through Building Control.
As you've already spent a fair bit on the house, I'd say in this case it would be worth spending a bit more. 

The bit that would concern me is the 'L' shaped pillar that has been created by removing the wall between the kitchen and the dining area, and making the opening between the kitchen and 'reception room'.  The external rear wall seems to sit directly above the 'L', so the issue is how that first-floor external wall is supported, and whether the 'L' is helping to provide that support, and if so, whether if has sufficient lateral stability now that walls on either side of it have gone.

I'd also want to know the history of the house and whether the ground floor has been extended to the rear, or if the first-floor extenal wall was always above an 'internal' wall on the ground floor.  Gut-feel, based only on the floor plans, I wonder whether the rear of the ground floor is made up of two extensions done at different times, which would further complicate the structural situation.

I agree with the need for a SE to have a look, but not sure they will be able to add much without seeing the structure.

That's a good point about the pillar. There's a lot more information about the property required. 
I wonder if Building Control were involved with the new toilet.

FreeBear

MikeJXE said:

It’s fair to say the joists take the shortest span being 10’ and 5’5”  so I doubt the walls were load bearing but

What would concern me is the walls that separated the kitchen from the dining being removed unless an rsj has been installed

The floor plan is typical of many properties built between 1920 and 1950 (and later) to suggested layouts from the Tudor report. If this house is anything like mine, the joists for the upstairs floor run from front to back. The dividing wall between the two main bedrooms support ceiling joists and part of roof load. The (removed) wall below would transfer these loads into the foundations. Whilst the wall that was removed from the kitchen may not have been load bearing, it could (would ?) be providing lateral stability to the external wall - With a rear extension and presumably a sizeable RSJ resting on that pillar, I would have concerns.

Side note - Have a few stud walls here. Two support the ceiling joists upstairs. Another one supports the end of the staircase as well as the floor joists in the box room. Removal of any of them would be a dumb idea if additional support was not put in first.