Survey results.....
Discussion
I've had a 10k retention put on a house I'm buying pending a damp and timber survey. This is the result of the survey.
Sorry its so long, however do we think its reasonable that the retention should get reduced?
I am pleased to report:-
Woodborer infestation
Roof
This originally thatched property has been re-roofed in modern times, probably in the 1980’s
The roof covering is concrete interlocking pantiles on modern breathable roofing underlay.
The structure of the main roof comprises newer rafters in tantalised softwood carried on the original kingpost roof truss structure. The reason that a new higher structure was necessary is that the original thatch would have been considerable thicker than the new pantiles and it would have been required to maintain the roof line.
The remaining original structure is very strong with large section king post trusses carrying large purlins. The plaster lath ceilings are carried on ceiling joists which span from the trusses to the perimeter walls.
An examination of the new roof timbers suggests that this is tantalised timber and therefore not vulnerable to wood worm attack. I did not find any flight holes in the limited inspection that I made. I therefore concluded that it is unlikely that this newer timber is at risk.
I did find flight holes in the older timber. I found the holes generally accepted to be the furniture beetle. I did not find the larger holes associated with death watch or long horn.
The level of damage is of this order: Trusses and purlins Minimal
Ceiling joists more extensive and widespread. The ceiling joists looked to have been less seasoned than the more finished trusses and purlins.
My advice is that this roof void should be treated.
Prior to treatment the residue of thatched material should be removed.
This is a large roof space and I would estimate that the cost of remedial spraying would be of the order of £1,250.00.
Upper floors.
The house was generally carpeted and therefore a full examination of the top surface of the floor boarding was not possible, in the scope of this survey neither was an examination of the floor void. Lifting carpet at the edges revealed a minimal outbreak of furniture beetle attack in a sporadic set of outbreaks.
I concluded that the effect on the floors was minimal. My understanding is that you propose to carry out rewiring and installation of heating pipes in the course of a refurbishment programme. My advice is given in the context of that information.
The infestation in the floors is minimal and would sensibly be dealt with in conjunction with your proposed works. The recommended procedure for treatment of upper floors is to take up every fourth board and spray the underside of the floor boards so exposed and the sides of the exposed joists. In practise a heavy spray into the floor cavity and soaking the top surface of the floor boards has the desired effect. Most treatment firms will operate on an adhoc basis, coming in to spray to suit your programme. I would estimate that the cost of this should be no more than £750.00 for the whole operation to the upper floors. This work could be done on a DIY basis as guarantees are generally more appropriate to the roof .
Staircase.
I noted that there was a moderate outbreak in the under stairs compartment and would recommend that this is cleared out and sprayed during the course of the upper floor visit.
Damp Penetration
The construction of this house is generally a stone foundation (visible at the road end of the property) possibly bearing onto the underlying rock surface. This was not an invasive survey so I cannot be sure of that statement but I detected very little movement in this house which is unusual in basically a medieval structure.
The stone visible would largely be impervious.
I found only one area that had a hollow floor and floor boards on the ground floor that was the lounge. The whole of the house was carpeted at the time of my inspection and therefore only a minimal inspection by lifting carpet was possible. Generally I found trowelled concrete. I suspect that this is screed overlaying the original flagstones.
The wall structures are a combination of stone walling, brick and framed construction faced externally with render.
The house exhibited a high level of surface moisture on the walls and it suggests to me that much will be achieved by the introduction of heating and ventilation.
In relevance to damp testing, the house is basically in two sections: the main largely original house built in a combination of stone, brick walls and window surrounds with rendered exterior. Internal walls are stone and medieval studwork probably with brick infill. The second section is the rear single storey extension, which is much more modern. This extension contains the kitchen and bathroom which are both fully tiled. Where it was possible to take readings it was found to be dry and therefore ignored.
A standard protimeter test was taken at 1m centres around the ground floor walls. Readings were taken where possible and relevant. Readings are not relevant in tiled, dry lined or panelled areas.
The circumstances in which the test was taken are relevant. In this case there is not heating in the house and the house has been closed up for in excess of 12 months. There were no windows open on the day of my inspection
The main house
In a house of this construction, modern accepted forms of damp proofing would not be appropriate. For example, it would not be possible to introduce a damp proof membrane into the walls because of their form of construction.
It is possible that a vertical membrane system such as Delta could be used in discrete areas such as the sitting room. In the dining room, stripping off the rotten introduced timber boarding and exposing the base structure, combined with the recommended heating and ventilation would achieve positive results. A view could then be taken as to if anything at all would be necessary after that.
Sorry its so long, however do we think its reasonable that the retention should get reduced?
I am pleased to report:-
Woodborer infestation
Roof
This originally thatched property has been re-roofed in modern times, probably in the 1980’s
The roof covering is concrete interlocking pantiles on modern breathable roofing underlay.
The structure of the main roof comprises newer rafters in tantalised softwood carried on the original kingpost roof truss structure. The reason that a new higher structure was necessary is that the original thatch would have been considerable thicker than the new pantiles and it would have been required to maintain the roof line.
The remaining original structure is very strong with large section king post trusses carrying large purlins. The plaster lath ceilings are carried on ceiling joists which span from the trusses to the perimeter walls.
An examination of the new roof timbers suggests that this is tantalised timber and therefore not vulnerable to wood worm attack. I did not find any flight holes in the limited inspection that I made. I therefore concluded that it is unlikely that this newer timber is at risk.
I did find flight holes in the older timber. I found the holes generally accepted to be the furniture beetle. I did not find the larger holes associated with death watch or long horn.
The level of damage is of this order: Trusses and purlins Minimal
Ceiling joists more extensive and widespread. The ceiling joists looked to have been less seasoned than the more finished trusses and purlins.
My advice is that this roof void should be treated.
Prior to treatment the residue of thatched material should be removed.
This is a large roof space and I would estimate that the cost of remedial spraying would be of the order of £1,250.00.
Upper floors.
The house was generally carpeted and therefore a full examination of the top surface of the floor boarding was not possible, in the scope of this survey neither was an examination of the floor void. Lifting carpet at the edges revealed a minimal outbreak of furniture beetle attack in a sporadic set of outbreaks.
I concluded that the effect on the floors was minimal. My understanding is that you propose to carry out rewiring and installation of heating pipes in the course of a refurbishment programme. My advice is given in the context of that information.
The infestation in the floors is minimal and would sensibly be dealt with in conjunction with your proposed works. The recommended procedure for treatment of upper floors is to take up every fourth board and spray the underside of the floor boards so exposed and the sides of the exposed joists. In practise a heavy spray into the floor cavity and soaking the top surface of the floor boards has the desired effect. Most treatment firms will operate on an adhoc basis, coming in to spray to suit your programme. I would estimate that the cost of this should be no more than £750.00 for the whole operation to the upper floors. This work could be done on a DIY basis as guarantees are generally more appropriate to the roof .
Staircase.
I noted that there was a moderate outbreak in the under stairs compartment and would recommend that this is cleared out and sprayed during the course of the upper floor visit.
Damp Penetration
The construction of this house is generally a stone foundation (visible at the road end of the property) possibly bearing onto the underlying rock surface. This was not an invasive survey so I cannot be sure of that statement but I detected very little movement in this house which is unusual in basically a medieval structure.
The stone visible would largely be impervious.
I found only one area that had a hollow floor and floor boards on the ground floor that was the lounge. The whole of the house was carpeted at the time of my inspection and therefore only a minimal inspection by lifting carpet was possible. Generally I found trowelled concrete. I suspect that this is screed overlaying the original flagstones.
The wall structures are a combination of stone walling, brick and framed construction faced externally with render.
The house exhibited a high level of surface moisture on the walls and it suggests to me that much will be achieved by the introduction of heating and ventilation.
In relevance to damp testing, the house is basically in two sections: the main largely original house built in a combination of stone, brick walls and window surrounds with rendered exterior. Internal walls are stone and medieval studwork probably with brick infill. The second section is the rear single storey extension, which is much more modern. This extension contains the kitchen and bathroom which are both fully tiled. Where it was possible to take readings it was found to be dry and therefore ignored.
A standard protimeter test was taken at 1m centres around the ground floor walls. Readings were taken where possible and relevant. Readings are not relevant in tiled, dry lined or panelled areas.
The circumstances in which the test was taken are relevant. In this case there is not heating in the house and the house has been closed up for in excess of 12 months. There were no windows open on the day of my inspection
The main house
In a house of this construction, modern accepted forms of damp proofing would not be appropriate. For example, it would not be possible to introduce a damp proof membrane into the walls because of their form of construction.
It is possible that a vertical membrane system such as Delta could be used in discrete areas such as the sitting room. In the dining room, stripping off the rotten introduced timber boarding and exposing the base structure, combined with the recommended heating and ventilation would achieve positive results. A view could then be taken as to if anything at all would be necessary after that.
It's been a few years since I was involved in the industry so it could be that surveyors and lenders have changed their approach.
What used to happen was that the report was forwarded to the surveyor who would then say whether he agreed with the report, and whether a subsequent reduction in retention was appropriate. The comments on damp are vague which doesn't help anyone tick a box, unfortunately whether he's right or not can become academic.
If the surveyor isn't happy it may be worth speaking to him and asking if he can recommend a D&T firm. You're more likely to then get a report that is agreeable to the surveyor and lender.
The cost of the timber treatment seems very high, especially if you're expected to clear the roof voids. You would have to try very hard to spend £100 on materials spraying a roof void, no matter how large.
There are some T&D Companies that tend to be lenient (for want of a better word) on the less profitable aspects of T&D, yet charge a lot for the more profitable and easy work. Overall the quote seems cheap compared to a £10k retention. Having not seen the house I can't say if that is the case or not, but I would perhaps have expected some comments on whether the woodworm was active or not. There is plenty of fluff about the roof structure but nothing about the most important aspect. Arguably if there's no sign off active infestation then under the COSHH regulations you shouldn't be treating it. We are coming up to emergence time for woodworm so an inspection in a couple of months would tell you whether it was active. This then leads me to question, if you can suck it and see with the damp, why wouldn't you do the same with the woodworm if there's no signs of fresh activity?
What used to happen was that the report was forwarded to the surveyor who would then say whether he agreed with the report, and whether a subsequent reduction in retention was appropriate. The comments on damp are vague which doesn't help anyone tick a box, unfortunately whether he's right or not can become academic.
If the surveyor isn't happy it may be worth speaking to him and asking if he can recommend a D&T firm. You're more likely to then get a report that is agreeable to the surveyor and lender.
The cost of the timber treatment seems very high, especially if you're expected to clear the roof voids. You would have to try very hard to spend £100 on materials spraying a roof void, no matter how large.
There are some T&D Companies that tend to be lenient (for want of a better word) on the less profitable aspects of T&D, yet charge a lot for the more profitable and easy work. Overall the quote seems cheap compared to a £10k retention. Having not seen the house I can't say if that is the case or not, but I would perhaps have expected some comments on whether the woodworm was active or not. There is plenty of fluff about the roof structure but nothing about the most important aspect. Arguably if there's no sign off active infestation then under the COSHH regulations you shouldn't be treating it. We are coming up to emergence time for woodworm so an inspection in a couple of months would tell you whether it was active. This then leads me to question, if you can suck it and see with the damp, why wouldn't you do the same with the woodworm if there's no signs of fresh activity?
The damp stuff is slightly fuzzy as its a solid house built in the 1700's if not before, mainly brick and stone, as its not been ventilated/heated for a year you will get surface damp, also the timber 'walls' that are bolted to the inner skin in a couple of rooms are rotten from where they soak in moisture, apparently this is all normal in this type of build/age, however the person who did the survey for the mortgage company is from a third party and I guess covering his/her bottom a little?
Surveys always sound terrible - a couple of woodworm holes are commented on, suggesting spraying etc as a precaution, and lots of caution re damp in what sounds like something that has stood for hundreds of years. Presumably you're not expecting modern house levels of damp-proofing if you're buying a mediaeval house.
From what you post the absolute sums of money are not that great (and as others have said, if you want to spray the ghosts of the beetles, you can probably get it done for a fraction of the cost) so if you really like the house, go for it rather than pissing off the current vendors by trying to negotiate a few hundred pounds off the price. We had a buyer hassling us over a survey report on a Victorian terrace house in London - a lath and plaster ceiling wasn't perfect (strangely, 100yrs after being made) and I knocked £200 off the price to keep her happy, but that was in a very flat market and I suspect she's still living with the slightly less than perfect ceiling 20 years on. In a relatively buoyant market you may think that it's not worth the battle / risk of losing the property.
Edited to expunge exclamation marks and a spelling error (the shame).
From what you post the absolute sums of money are not that great (and as others have said, if you want to spray the ghosts of the beetles, you can probably get it done for a fraction of the cost) so if you really like the house, go for it rather than pissing off the current vendors by trying to negotiate a few hundred pounds off the price. We had a buyer hassling us over a survey report on a Victorian terrace house in London - a lath and plaster ceiling wasn't perfect (strangely, 100yrs after being made) and I knocked £200 off the price to keep her happy, but that was in a very flat market and I suspect she's still living with the slightly less than perfect ceiling 20 years on. In a relatively buoyant market you may think that it's not worth the battle / risk of losing the property.
Edited to expunge exclamation marks and a spelling error (the shame).
Edited by Revisitph on Thursday 17th April 20:54
Revisitph said:
Surveys always sound terrible - a couple of woodworm holes are commented on, suggesting spraying etc as a precaution, and lots of caution re damp in what sounds like something that has stood for hundreds of years. Presumably you're not expecting modern house levels of damp-proofing if you're buying a mediaeval house.
From what you post the absolute sums of money are not that great (and as others have said, if you want to spray the ghosts of the beetles, you can probably get it done for a fraction of the cost) so if you really like the house, go for it rather than pissing off the current vendors by trying to negotiate a few hundred pounds off the price. We had a buyer hassling us over a survey report on a Victorian terrace house in London - a lath and plaster ceiling wasn't perfect (strangely, 100yrs after being made) and I knocked £200 off the price to keep her happy, but that was in a very flat market and I suspect she's still living with the slightly less than perfect ceiling 20 years on. In a relatively buoyant market you may think that it's not worth the battle / risk of losing the property.
Edited to expunge exclamation marks and a spelling error (the shame).
I'm not after having money off, I've got it for a good price, my issue is with the mortgage company and the 10K retention for a few K's worth of work(at surveyor prices From what you post the absolute sums of money are not that great (and as others have said, if you want to spray the ghosts of the beetles, you can probably get it done for a fraction of the cost) so if you really like the house, go for it rather than pissing off the current vendors by trying to negotiate a few hundred pounds off the price. We had a buyer hassling us over a survey report on a Victorian terrace house in London - a lath and plaster ceiling wasn't perfect (strangely, 100yrs after being made) and I knocked £200 off the price to keep her happy, but that was in a very flat market and I suspect she's still living with the slightly less than perfect ceiling 20 years on. In a relatively buoyant market you may think that it's not worth the battle / risk of losing the property.
Edited to expunge exclamation marks and a spelling error (the shame).
Edited by Revisitph on Thursday 17th April 20:54
)Let me start with it sounds like a nice house with plenty of character!
As previously mentioned, any house of this age will have traces of damp and woodworm.
What have the mortgage company actually said? Get timbers treated or do they want the damp sorting out as well (Which most likely won't be successful with modern methods)?
This both your problem as you want the house and the vendors as they want to sell the house, the vendor will face this problem with whoever they sell the house to if it is funded by a mortgage. Would the vendor be willing to commission the woodworm treatment?
Also i'd advise speaking to your solicitor and agent (if they are the helpful type) for advice.
As previously mentioned, any house of this age will have traces of damp and woodworm.
What have the mortgage company actually said? Get timbers treated or do they want the damp sorting out as well (Which most likely won't be successful with modern methods)?
This both your problem as you want the house and the vendors as they want to sell the house, the vendor will face this problem with whoever they sell the house to if it is funded by a mortgage. Would the vendor be willing to commission the woodworm treatment?
Also i'd advise speaking to your solicitor and agent (if they are the helpful type) for advice.
jason61c said:
I'm not after having money off, I've got it for a good price, my issue is with the mortgage company and the 10K retention for a few K's worth of work(at surveyor prices )
Surveyors, in my experience, don't like rot to internal timber. It indicates higher than acceptable moisture coming in and in may cases the problem is worse than first thought. )Of course, we can't judge how much of an issue it is because we haven't seen it but I can tell you that the rot will predate the house being shut up.
It's usually best to get the lender's surveyor to accept you T&D Company's report, as they won't release the retention if they don't feel enough work has been done.
Your other option is to fund the £10k, or reduced figure, from elsewhere. However, there is often an undertaking to get the work done within a set timescale.
C Lee Farquar said:
Surveyors, in my experience, don't like rot to internal timber. It indicates higher than acceptable moisture coming in and in may cases the problem is worse than first thought.
Of course, we can't judge how much of an issue it is because we haven't seen it but I can tell you that the rot will predate the house being shut up.
It's usually best to get the lender's surveyor to accept you T&D Company's report, as they won't release the retention if they don't feel enough work has been done.
Your other option is to fund the £10k, or reduced figure, from elsewhere. However, there is often an undertaking to get the work done within a set timescale.
Yes I can only imagine! I just need to get that 10K figure lowered, otherwise I need 10k deposit then pay for the work then try to get the 10k back....Of course, we can't judge how much of an issue it is because we haven't seen it but I can tell you that the rot will predate the house being shut up.
It's usually best to get the lender's surveyor to accept you T&D Company's report, as they won't release the retention if they don't feel enough work has been done.
Your other option is to fund the £10k, or reduced figure, from elsewhere. However, there is often an undertaking to get the work done within a set timescale.
Had another look around yesterday, a really good poke about, Seems to me like the issue is a concrete render used on the outside instead of a lime render so the house isn't breathing. Almost a slight damp on most walls. This along with an untreated infestation which means various timbers need replacing.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff