Is this building surveyor negligence?

Fabmum66

Hi,
we purchased a Grade ll listed thatched cottage in December 2019 and had a full building survey done at the time by a RICS accredited surveyor. The inspection was undertaken on 22 December 2019 and the report produced on 2nd September 2019. The report stated that the roof structure had a condition rating of 1: no need for repair.

The property is currently being rethatched however, in the course of taking the old thatch off this year, a number of longstanding structural issues have come to light eg missing ridge beam, missing rafters, rafters wedged into rubble, disintegrated wall plates.

The builder, structural engineer and thatcher have all stated that these would and should have been identified at the time of the original report, as they pose a risk to the integrity of the roof structure. 

Our insurance company suggested that we pursue this as professional negligence through our buildings cover. We have done this and understand that if the surveyor didn’t see the problem, then he wasn’t being negligent as he can only be pursued for what was identifiable at the time. The solicitor advised that as the roof had not fallen off since purchase, we would not be able to prove negligence even though (in my view) the missing ridge beam alone would have been blindingly obvious. When I queried this I was told I would need an expert witness, who repeated this line.

There is a statute of limitations of 6 years from the date of inspection but there is also secondary period of 3 years from the date the problem became apparent. When I queried whether this secondary limitation would apply, the solicitor then said that not in my case as it was my responsibility to ensure that the survey was correct and check the roof structure myself at the time of the original inspection.

i‘m at a complete loss as to why it was my responsibility to check an expert‘s work, given that I’m not an expert and that’s why we appointed the surveyor in the first place. I‘d welcome any thoughts or views.

bobster2

Fabmum66 said:

The property is currently being rethatched however, in the course of taking the old thatch off this year, a number of longstanding structural issues have come to light eg missing ridge beam, missing rafters, rafters wedged into rubble, disintegrated wall plates.

The builder, structural engineer and thatcher have all stated that these would and should have been identified at the time of the original report, as they pose a risk to the integrity of the roof structure. 

You say these issues have come to light when the old thatch was taken off?

Would these issues have been visible with the old thatch in place?

Hoenir

Was the roof space empty at the time of the inspection? Surveyors do not move items to gain access. 

Surprising given what you describe that the previous owners wouldn't have been fully aware of the longstanding structural issues themselves. Particularly if the Thatch was heading towards the end of its natural lifespan. 

Section62

Fabmum66 said:

...
The property is currently being rethatched however, in the course of taking the old thatch off this year, a number of longstanding structural issues have come to light eg missing ridge beam, missing rafters, rafters wedged into rubble, disintegrated wall plates.
...

Can you clarify what you mean by "missing"?  I.e. something which was there once but has been removed (recently), or something which was never there to start with.

Old buildings (assuming this is the case if it is thatched) generally weren't built to any kind of plan or standard - the craftspeople just built according to what they had and thought they needed.  So, for example, whereas today we'd specify rafters of a particular size at 'x' spacing, 300 years ago the rafters could be all different sizes and the carpenter would space them according to how strong he thought each one was... so two adjacent 'big' rafters could have a wider gap between them than two smaller ones.  The larger gap doesn't necessarily mean one is 'missing'.  The same applies to the ridge board - although this is a common thing to see, and on a modern build you wouldn't do a cut roof without one, 300 years ago there were no rules that would have required one. If the roof was built without a ridge board then it isn't really 'missing' - and that the roof has lasted so long already would tend to suggest the builder was correct in their assessment.

Was there any form of access into the roof space which would have allowed the surveyor to see the 'missing' structure?  And if there was, did the builder/SE/thatcher make use of this access to inspect the roof structure prior to the old thatch being stripped?

TBH the issues such as rafters wedged into rubble/disintegrated wall plates are exactly what you'd expect to find on an old building which hasn't been modernised.  An experienced thatcher would (in my view) expect to come across these defects as a routine part of the job, and quite probably rectify them with little or no fuss.  In the overall cost of a full rethatch, doing some timber replacement would be relatively trivial, perhaps with the exception of the need to check with the conservation officer* if the building is listed.

*On that subject, are you in contact with the conservation officer and have you got listed building consent (if required)?  If the house was built or subsequently modified so it doesn't have a ridgeboard then modifying the roof to install one could be regarded as quite a fundamental change to the fabric of the building.

GDB2222

“ The inspection was undertaken on 22 December 2019 and the report produced on 2nd September 2019. The report stated that the roof structure had a condition rating of 1: no need for repair.”

When was the inspection actually done? Are you still just within the 6 years? 

“ . When I queried whether this secondary limitation would apply, the solicitor then said that not in my case as it was my responsibility to ensure that the survey was correct and check the roof structure myself at the time of the original inspection.”

I’m perplexed by this. 

user1977

Fabmum66 said:

We have done this and understand that if the surveyor didn’t see the problem, then he wasn’t being negligent as he can only be pursued for what was identifiable at the time. The solicitor advised that as the roof had not fallen off since purchase, we would not be able to prove negligence even though (in my view) the missing ridge beam alone would have been blindingly obvious. When I queried this I was told I would need an expert witness, who repeated this line.

Which line? Are you saying you've had an expert witness inspect the roof but they don't think you've got a case?

ReadySteadyPop

Fabmum66 said:

Hi,
we purchased a Grade ll listed thatched cottage in December 2019 and had a full building survey done at the time by a RICS accredited surveyor. The inspection was undertaken on 22 December 2019 and the report produced on 2nd September 2019. The report stated that the roof structure had a condition rating of 1: no need for repair.

The property is currently being rethatched however, in the course of taking the old thatch off this year, a number of longstanding structural issues have come to light eg missing ridge beam, missing rafters, rafters wedged into rubble, disintegrated wall plates.

The builder, structural engineer and thatcher have all stated that these would and should have been identified at the time of the original report, as they pose a risk to the integrity of the roof structure. 

Our insurance company suggested that we pursue this as professional negligence through our buildings cover. We have done this and understand that if the surveyor didn’t see the problem, then he wasn’t being negligent as he can only be pursued for what was identifiable at the time. The solicitor advised that as the roof had not fallen off since purchase, we would not be able to prove negligence even though (in my view) the missing ridge beam alone would have been blindingly obvious. When I queried this I was told I would need an expert witness, who repeated this line.

There is a statute of limitations of 6 years from the date of inspection but there is also secondary period of 3 years from the date the problem became apparent. When I queried whether this secondary limitation would apply, the solicitor then said that not in my case as it was my responsibility to ensure that the survey was correct and check the roof structure myself at the time of the original inspection.

i‘m at a complete loss as to why it was my responsibility to check an expert‘s work, given that I’m not an expert and that’s why we appointed the surveyor in the first place. I‘d welcome any thoughts or views.

Previous repair teams working on the roof would have been aware of this, and obviously someone has done work  in the past that wasn`t up to a good standard, but the previous owner might not have been aware unless they were up on the roof when work was being done? Your last paragraph makes sense and for that reason the solicitor statement sounds odd to me.