Buying a house with removed internal wall

Jb070218

Hi, I’m in the process of buying a house where the current owner has removed part of a ground floor internal wall (marked with a red dotted line in the floorplan). They’ve stated the wall wasn’t load-bearing, and my surveyor noted it as a potential load-bearing wall but confirmed there’s no visible movement or structural issues during the inspection.

I overlaid the current and original floor plans (attached photo), and it appears there’s nothing above the removed wall to support. The work was done over 10 years ago without any signs of problems. However, the seller doesn’t seem to have proof of Building Regulations approval, so an indemnity policy may be the only option.

My question is: given that the wall doesn’t seem to support anything according to the plans and no movement has been observed, would it be reasonable to proceed with just the indemnity policy without involving a structural engineer for an invasive check?

We love this house and want to make it work. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Martin_the_Unjust

Would removing a non load bearing interior wall more than 10 years ago even need building control approval?

But given that it’s over 10 years since it was removed with no sign of structural issues it wouldn’t concern me at all.

Baldytyke88

Jb070218 said:

Hi, I’m in the process of buying a house where the current owner has removed part of a ground floor internal wall (marked with a red dotted line in the floorplan). They’ve stated the wall wasn’t load-bearing, and my surveyor noted it as a potential load-bearing wall but confirmed there’s no visible movement or structural issues during the inspection.

Get your surveyor to make his mind up, if it's room 1, I would agree that it does not appear to be load-bearing.

Section62

Jb070218 said:

My question is: given that the wall doesn’t seem to support anything according to the plans and no movement has been observed, would it be reasonable to proceed with just the indemnity policy without involving a structural engineer for an invasive check?

"Loadbearing" is about more than just what is (visibly) immediately above a wall.  Walls can provide lateral support (i.e. to walls at the ends) or there can be structure which is hidden (for example in the space between the ground floor ceiling and first floor floor).  An example being the first floor joists which may rest on top of a ground floor wall but not have a structure built on top of them.

Unfortunately the only way of being sure is for inspection by a qualified structural engineer.  It is easy for folk to say "that doesn't look structural" but without a qualified opinion it is just a guess.

Likewise, the fact there is no visible sign of movement doesn't mean there is no structural inadequacy.  Structures can stand for decades without movement if the circumstances are right - but a small change in circumstances can change all that.  Equally, there could have been movement which the current owners have covered up.

Asking people on the internet for structural advice is a bit pointless unfortunately... you've got no way to work out if the people responding know anything about structural engineering, and a meaningful opinion can't be given without more information than you can currently share with us.

Edit:  Has the kitchen been extended to the rear?  If so, are you sure the wall the surveyor is talking about is where the red line is?  If they have extended the kitchen and removed part of the original rear wall then that could be a serious concern.

GDB2222

There appear to be fireplaces at ground floor level, but not at first floor. Have the stacks been removed?

Jb070218

GDB2222 said:

There appear to be fireplaces at ground floor level, but not at first floor. Have the stacks been removed?

The fire place showing is the one on the first floor. Ground floor chimney breast has been removed

GDB2222

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF1pHzGkSC4

Jb070218

Section62 said:

Jb070218 said:

My question is: given that the wall doesn’t seem to support anything according to the plans and no movement has been observed, would it be reasonable to proceed with just the indemnity policy without involving a structural engineer for an invasive check?

"Loadbearing" is about more than just what is (visibly) immediately above a wall.  Walls can provide lateral support (i.e. to walls at the ends) or there can be structure which is hidden (for example in the space between the ground floor ceiling and first floor floor).  An example being the first floor joists which may rest on top of a ground floor wall but not have a structure built on top of them.

Unfortunately the only way of being sure is for inspection by a qualified structural engineer.  It is easy for folk to say "that doesn't look structural" but without a qualified opinion it is just a guess.

Likewise, the fact there is no visible sign of movement doesn't mean there is no structural inadequacy.  Structures can stand for decades without movement if the circumstances are right - but a small change in circumstances can change all that.  Equally, there could have been movement which the current owners have covered up.

Asking people on the internet for structural advice is a bit pointless unfortunately... you've got no way to work out if the people responding know anything about structural engineering, and a meaningful opinion can't be given without more information than you can currently share with us.

Edit:  Has the kitchen been extended to the rear?  If so, are you sure the wall the surveyor is talking about is where the red line is?  If they have extended the kitchen and removed part of the original rear wall then that could be a serious concern.

Thank you, I will ask the seller if they had a structure engineer to check the walls prior to alteration. Otherwise we will get a structure engineer to have a look. Btw, one of the houses in the area had the same wall knocked over 

The kitchen has not been extended, all the houses in the area has the same layout with the kitchen protruding toward the garden.

Section62

Jb070218 said:

GDB2222 said:

There appear to be fireplaces at ground floor level, but not at first floor. Have the stacks been removed?

The fire place showing is the one on the first floor. Ground floor chimney breast has been removed

With building regs?

Slight tangent, but why are bedrooms 2 and 3 not shown having walls on the right hand side of the plan? Is this a problem with the scale of the plans?

GDB2222

Jb070218 said:

GDB2222 said:

There appear to be fireplaces at ground floor level, but not at first floor. Have the stacks been removed?

The fire place showing is the one on the first floor. Ground floor chimney breast has been removed

it’s still a problem. The stack weighs tons and needs to be supported. When the house was built, there was a continuous column from the foundations to the top of the stack. What’s holding it up at first floor level now ? 

Jb070218

GDB2222 said:

Jb070218 said:

GDB2222 said:

There appear to be fireplaces at ground floor level, but not at first floor. Have the stacks been removed?

The fire place showing is the one on the first floor. Ground floor chimney breast has been removed

it’s still a problem. The stack weighs tons and needs to be supported. When the house was built, there was a continuous column from the foundations to the top of the stack. What’s holding it up at first floor level now ? 

I can’t quite remember but I think they have used brackets to support the rest of the chimney breast. I am viewing the house in a week so I will pay some close attention