What Survey? 16 Year old house.

[ALawson]

Hi

We have just had an offer accepted on a 16 year old detached house, I used to live on the same housing development years ago built by the same company and had no problems in 3 years (the property was about 8 years old at the time).

As a civil engineer I have given it the once over and it looks in very good condition, no external cracking on the brickwork, damp course has 150mm around the outside of the house. With a new kitchen and bathroom in the last 4 years, a documented service history of the boiler and good electrices I think I only need a valuation and nothing else.

I suppose its propably only a few hundred pounds more for a home buyers survey and they always seem to forecast the worst without guaranteeing anything.

Has anyone got any thoughs?

Thanks in advance.

[silverthorn2151]

It's always a difficult one. The party line is that I should be saying of course you need a survey go for this one or that one. It depends though, IMHO on how much of an informed client you are. 16 year old house, you know the estate, can't see much wrong, services seem covered. I would ask yourself what a survey is going to show that you haven't seen.

My pet hate is surveys that turn into, or are expected to be a catalogue of minor defects. Anything that's 16 years old is likley to have a few bits wrong with it. Services wearing out mostly, decorations are cyclical and down to maintenance and attention.

Ask yourself that question therefore, what would a survey say that I can't see. Roof coverings, roof structure, fire precautions (depends on a lot I know). If there isn't much what you are really doing is buying insurance cover for 6 years.

However, if you were someone who didn't know what DPC meant, I'd say have a home buyers report.

[furtive]

My survey is being done on Thursday. I'm buying a 16 year old house as well, and have gone for a Homebuyers Report as mine doesn't sound quite as well looked after as yours. There have been no structural changes to the building since it was built, so I didn't see any need for a full structural survey, but felt the need for a homebuyers report due to the condition of the house (purely decorative I think)

Edited by furtive on Tuesday 3rd August 14:23

[henrycrun]

Come on you know what to look for - make an appointment - take a stepladder, camera, notebook and binoculars and spend a few hours going over everything.
Take tools for lifting manhole covers, flush loos, run taps, check water goes where it should. Poke about in the loft.
Buy or borrow a plugin mains tester and ckeck the sockets. Photograph the meter cupboards and water tanks.

Otherwise you'll just get the useless 'Suggest Inspection of Bogroll Holder - recommend survey carried out by qualified Bogroll Holder Engineer' type of thing.

[Vron]

And when you try to sue one for missing a major fault they will tell you there has been a 'cataclysmic event' since the survey was done to try to avoid paying.

[dustybottoms]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

^^^^^This

The only house I have purchased (the one I still live in) which is a 130 year old house, the survey was a waste of time, said it needed the complete damp proofing renewed, pointed out every little aspect that was remotely wrong (about 15 pages worth), mostly things that I just couldn't imagine why they would point out (asked my Dad why the list was so extensive and pointless (Dad is a retired Surveyor) and he said they were arse covering.

But the Surveyor didn't go in to the loft as he didn't have a ladder with him (idiot), didn't check the roof because of the same and it was raining, didn't check the garage at all, didn't bother looking at the conservatory etc. Didn't bother checking anything at the rear of the house as he said his view was obstructed by a tree blah blah blah...

I have lived in this house 11 years with no issue, as for the damp proofing course needing to be renewed at a cost of thousands; it just needed an air brick installed at a cost of 30quid!!

Not sure I would ever bother again with a survey regardless of the age of the house.

[Deva Link]

Vron said:

And when you try to sue one for missing a major fault they will tell you there has been a 'cataclysmic event' since the survey was done to try to avoid paying.

Going back a bit, but ours missed that the house had extensive blown plaster. Then said they had no responsibility to us as the survey had been arranged through the building society - even though we'd paid for it and signed the instructions.
Family solicitor jumped up and down all over them and it cost them a lot.

Daughter is currently buying a 30 year old house and decided not to bother with anything other than the valuation. The house is a standard estate built property - I got a checklist of things to look for and had a good look at it. As others have said, the inbetween homebuyers survey seems pointless as all they do is have a very superficial look and what you get is a list of if's, but's and maybe's.
She's so set on buying the house anyway that I don't think anything would put her off.

[netherfield]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

And more...
Can only check the guttering if it's raining when I visit.
Didn't bother checking the outside because it was raining when I got there.


Could not check condition of floors or joists because of fitted carpets.

Edited by netherfield on Wednesday 4th August 18:09

[Gareth79]

I had a Homebuyer's Report done, I previously spoke to a RICS surveyor and they said that for the average house the only real difference between it and a structural survey is that they spend more time writing the report, they would pick up the same sorts of problems. That may however just be because they make more profit on a Homebuyer's Report and there are in fact major differences re. liability.

In all cases they don't seem to ever use a long ladder or binoculars, so for anything above the gutters you will need somebody else in.

Anyway I bought a 60 year old ex-MOD place and had a HR done. It was fairly brief unlike a few I have seeen (which list each door that is sticking, windows with stiff handles etc), but it was some peace of mind that there isn't some major problem. I have now looked over nearly all of the house in detail and the only thing that I have found was a large section of mortar has slipped out the bottom of a hip ridge, and a bird has made use of the hole. That said, it is tricky to see from ground level.

[mk1fan]

There's a great example of a home buyer who was looking at a nice big house near Heathrow. The buyer was in full knowledge that the airport was in close proximity.

The Surveyor didn't mention the airport being nearby in the report and the buyer then refused to pay any of the (substantial) fees for the survey because of this.

It was held to be correct to with hold payment in the High Court.

So, the reason why survey reports are mainly caveats and exclusions are because Clients (you) need to be 'told' why items weren't inspected - regardless of how stupidly obvious it is.

Now not taking a ladder to inspect the loft, if the property has one, is poor practice.

Lifting fitted carpets, really? As a seller how would you react that you'd need to remove all your furniture so that all the carpets can be lifted - checking one or two corners wouldn't be sufficient because you'd need to caveat (obviously) that your observations only refer to the areas uncovered. As a buyer how would you react to having to pay £400 to have two carpet fitters standing around all day to lift and relay the carpets? Then what about tiled surfaces?

As for the OP, sounds like you just need a valuation.

[ALawson]

Cheers everyone, went and arranged just a valuation through Woolwich this morning. Mortgage is all approved, we are selling to a First time buyer and the house we are buying the owners are going into rented, so less complicated than it could have been. I will wait to see if they mention Farnbrough airport!

Apart from the wife being 4 days overdue everything is going swimmingly!