House none standard construction not spotted in original survey.

JRTB197274

we were given a mortgage with NatWest who considered the property suitable loan security. The survey states that the property is NOT of non standard or unconventional construction. This is incorrect The property IS of unconventional ,non standard construction. We are now in the process of trying to sell property. All potential buyers' surveys have highlighted this non standard construction and as such no lender has been willing to offer a mortgage .We were advised to contact the surveying company which we have and they have stated that their legal obligations were to the mortgage lender and not ourselves so we have no recourse. We are now having to look to auction the property with a guide price at @ £40,000 less than the asking price when we first put it on the market. If the report identified the single skin (as have all the subsequent surveys for lenders) we would not have been given a mortgage and therefore not be in this property which we cannot sell at price. 

Has anyone been in a similar situation? We are struggling to decided what to do next as need the equity from the sale to buy another property. Any advise on how we can recoup our losses would be helpful. Thanks in advance. 

silvercar

Have all your potential buyers had full surveys? Seems odd that you had a valuation alone, whereas the general advice is to get at least a home buyers report.

one option is to wait until a buyer comes along that only has a valuation rather than a survey.

lincroft1710

A house built totally of single skin brickwork should still have an inner leaf, what is its construction?


If you did not commission the survey, you have no recourse against the surveyors. Your lender lends you the money, if at the time they believe the property is of sufficient worth. They have no obligation towards you regarding any subsequent faults found with the property whether new or existing.

Albermarle

Surely the whole house is not single skin?
Presumably an extension?

GDB2222

lincroft1710 said:

A house built totally of single skin brickwork should still have an inner leaf, what is its construction?


If you did not commission the survey, you have no recourse against the surveyors. Your lender lends you the money, if at the time they believe the property is of sufficient worth. They have no obligation towards you regarding any subsequent faults found with the property whether new or existing.

There were a couple of cases nearly 50 years ago that established that mortgage valuers do have a duty of care to the homebuyers. I am a bit shocked that the OP's surveyors have said that they are not liable.

There's an explanation here.
https://www.property-elite.co.uk/post/hot-topic-highlight-valuation-duty-of-care-caselaw

Unfortunately, the OP probably needs to engage a solicitor to deal with this. It may not go to court, but at the moment it seems rather too easy for the surveyors just to deny responsibility without any repercussions. 

lincroft1710

GDB2222 said:

lincroft1710 said:

A house built totally of single skin brickwork should still have an inner leaf, what is its construction?


If you did not commission the survey, you have no recourse against the surveyors. Your lender lends you the money, if at the time they believe the property is of sufficient worth. They have no obligation towards you regarding any subsequent faults found with the property whether new or existing.

There were a couple of cases nearly 50 years ago that established that mortgage valuers do have a duty of care to the homebuyers. I am a bit shocked that the OP's surveyors have said that they are not liable.

There's an explanation here.
https://www.property-elite.co.uk/post/hot-topic-highlight-valuation-duty-of-care-caselaw

Unfortunately, the OP probably needs to engage a solicitor to deal with this. It may not go to court, but at the moment it seems rather too easy for the surveyors just to deny responsibility without any repercussions. 

2 things we don't know are how long ago the OP bought the house and what exactly the construction is as I find it hard to believe it is just built of single skin brick. Also we don't know if the mortgage valuer actually visited the property. If the mortgage valuer did visit the property and it is of single brick construction with no inner leaf, then I think the valuer was extremely negligent.


One final point is that existing case law can be overturned by subsequent cases.

AskAsk

GDB2222 said:

lincroft1710 said:

A house built totally of single skin brickwork should still have an inner leaf, what is its construction?


If you did not commission the survey, you have no recourse against the surveyors. Your lender lends you the money, if at the time they believe the property is of sufficient worth. They have no obligation towards you regarding any subsequent faults found with the property whether new or existing.

There were a couple of cases nearly 50 years ago that established that mortgage valuers do have a duty of care to the homebuyers. I am a bit shocked that the OP's surveyors have said that they are not liable.

There's an explanation here.
https://www.property-elite.co.uk/post/hot-topic-highlight-valuation-duty-of-care-caselaw

Unfortunately, the OP probably needs to engage a solicitor to deal with this. It may not go to court, but at the moment it seems rather too easy for the surveyors just to deny responsibility without any repercussions. 

50 years ago is a long time ago.  Buyers are more savvy these days and get more advice about surveys and homebuyers report.

as someone had said, we don't know when the OP bought the house but i am sure the lender's valuation report will have lots of caveats in it to protect themselves, that it is not a property survey and so the borrower should not rely on it as it is for the bank's use and they are sharing the information with the borrower for that purpose only.

Myci85

It depends what percentage is single skin construction. There are lenders that will consider it if it's below a certain percentage of total build, however I think lenders are getting more strict than they were. We nearly bought a house with partial single skin, but our broker warned us that even if we could get a mortgage on it now, it could well become unmortgageable in the future. 

RHemmings

GDB2222 said:

lincroft1710 said:

A house built totally of single skin brickwork should still have an inner leaf, what is its construction?


If you did not commission the survey, you have no recourse against the surveyors. Your lender lends you the money, if at the time they believe the property is of sufficient worth. They have no obligation towards you regarding any subsequent faults found with the property whether new or existing.

There were a couple of cases nearly 50 years ago that established that mortgage valuers do have a duty of care to the homebuyers. I am a bit shocked that the OP's surveyors have said that they are not liable.

There's an explanation here.
https://www.property-elite.co.uk/post/hot-topic-highlight-valuation-duty-of-care-caselaw

Unfortunately, the OP probably needs to engage a solicitor to deal with this. It may not go to court, but at the moment it seems rather too easy for the surveyors just to deny responsibility without any repercussions. 

There are more recent cases in your reference, but the more recent cases are ones where it was decided that no duty of care from the lender's surveyors to the buyers existed. But, they include cases such as when the purchasor was a buy-to-let investor and it is assumed they could afford and knew the importance of a survey. And another case where it was known that the buyer hadn't even read the lender's report. 

There is some more here: 

https://osborneslaw.com/property-law/property-litigation/surveyor-negligence/#:~:text=Does the surveyor owe you,is instructed by a lender.

Does the surveyor owe you a duty of care?

The surveyor will owe a duty of care to you if it can be shown that they knew or should have known that you would rely on their report. This will be obvious in most cases, even if the surveyor is instructed by a lender.

The relationship is less clear-cut where, for example, a surveyor provides a valuation to a seller who then passes it on to a buyer. A solicitor can advise on the specifics of your case.

I fully agree that if the OP wishes to pursue this they need to engage a solicitor. It does sound to be quite restrictive circumstances for a lender's survey to 'know or ought to have known that [a buyer] would rely on their report.' 

Note: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.