Two structural surveys and two different conclusions

TheGoldfish

I am in the process of selling my late mother's house. Just before Christmas I accepted an offer. Their buyer's survey report rightly identified cracks in the back wall as a concern and recommended a structual engineer look at them. The report came back as 'progressive subsidence' which completely suprised me. He recommended that complete under pinning be carried out on the front and rear of the house. I have also been told by the estate agent that I am legally required to advise potential buyers of the subsidence.

I was so certain that the report was wrong that I looked at the surveyor's online footprint. He graduated with a Masters degree in Engineering in 2013 and set up his business 6 months later. He is not a member of any organisation like the Institution of Civil Engineers. The report didn't make any attempt to justify the conclusion that it was 'progressive subsidence'. It makes not reference the clay soil or the calcium silicate bricks and their characteristics.

As I was certain the report was wrong I decided have my own structural survey done by a recommended structural surveyor and his report came back that there is no progressive subsidence and the cracks are historic. He did mention the clay soil and the bricks stating that calcium silicate bricks are very strong but have a coefficient of expansion 50% greater than other other bricks. He recommended helifix repairs to two of the cracks and rest simply filled with a repair adhesive. The house does not need to be under pinned.

My question is now that I have a report stating there is no progressive subsidence at the property do I still need to advise potential buyers of the first report?

It does seem odd to me that there is a legal obligation to declaire subsidence when the people that carry out the surveys appear to be unregulated.

Sapindus

Did the first buyer pull out then? 

Personally I would be upfront with buyers and say look we've had two surveys saying different things, make your own enquiries. 

TheGoldfish

Sapindus said:

Did the first buyer pull out then? 

Yes. They felt the additional cost of under pinning was a cost they could not afford.

youth_leader

I am very sorry to hear this.  Was the structural engineer you employed a member of The Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE)?

TheGoldfish

youth_leader said:

I am very sorry to hear this.  Was the structural engineer you employed a member of The Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE)?

The structural engineer I employed was a member of The Institution of Structural Engineers but the structural engineer the buyer employed was not.

youth_leader

I would contact your EA and allow them extracts from your engineer's report - as he is regulated, he is unlikely to err. 

I am sorry you lost your buyer over the first report, I would tell your EA you have commissioned your own report and subsidence is not an issue.  Underpinning a house is expensive and takes time.    A friend looked at a lovely bungalow ... then noticed the big dip in the patio.  A structural engineer visited and told her the whole place was sinking, as well as sliding down the hill.  Such a shame as she really liked the view.

david29dpo

Simply tell the buyers (and agent) the first report was wrong, done by an idiot so you got a second one.

AskAsk

david29dpo said:

Simply tell the buyers (and agent) the first report was wrong, done by an idiot so you got a second one.

this is the best advice.  say that the first report was done by an unregistered engineer and so you had got a registered structural engineer to do a proper assessment.

TripleH

When we bought our house the first mortgage surveyor came out and refused the property because the wall was bowing and liable to collapse.

This was the lender's get out because so many properties on our estate were bought via the same lender and they wanted to lessen their risk.

Our current lender found no such issue.

We have a stone brick property with a textured surface which isn't flat like traditional bricks plus the property was less than a year old.

It wiped the arrogant grin off the smug estate agents who were hassling us for not using their brokers (who boasted about their great deal with the same lender who rejected our house).

Section62

youth_leader said:

I would contact your EA and allow them extracts from your engineer's report - as he is regulated, he is unlikely to err. 
...

I wouldn't go that far.

A chartered structural engineer has demonstrated competence through education and experience, and passed an assessment of competence, as well as committing to continuing professional development.

The Engineering Council (via IStructE) provide regulation of who can call themselves a chartered engineer, and there are disciplinary processes, but the regulation applicable at individual level doesn't mean they can't make mistakes.

Someone else could have the same level of education and experience but without EC and IStructE membership cannot call themselves 'chartered'.

But that doesn't automatically mean they are wrong and the chartered engineer is right.  However, it does mean that a court (for example) would typically attach more weight to the opinion of a chartered engineer vs a non-chartered engineer.  Some work can only be done by a chartered engineer - either by law, or a refusal by others to accept anything but a chartered engineer's opinion.

A 'surveyor' isn't a structural engineer, but if they have been practicing for ~10 years then it doesn't seem likely that they are a total idiot.  Unless they have been very careful about the jobs they take on, and have always erred well on the side of caution, it would be reasonable to think that at least one of their mistakes by now would have left them in quite serious trouble. There's also the issue of professional indemnity insurance - if they have it, and what kind of work they told the insurer they are doing.

The TL;DR is that being chartered doesn't make you infallible, and if I was a buyer presented with both reports I'd want to understand a lot more about how the two different opinions were arrived at from the same basic facts.

Albermarle

The TL;DR is that being chartered doesn't make you infallible, and if I was a buyer presented with both reports I'd want to understand a lot more about how the two different opinions were arrived at from the same basic facts.
Probably a third opinion/survey will be needed in the end.