My house is going to fall down

[Lippitt]

Probably. Eventually. If we don't do something about it.

We have a beam in our living room that apparently is holding up the top half of our house. This in turn is supported by a useless brick wall, that shuts off some space we could use. We had a builder round to see if we could remove the brick wall, and not only did he say it was holding the beam up (which is holding the house up) he also thinks the distance between the wall holding up the beam and the opposite wall is too great, as it's starting to bow.

My question is, should the survey have picked this up? We didn't have a full structural survey done but the 'middle' version (from what I can remember).

Sorry to sound clueless - but I am!

[Defcon5]

How old is the house?

[Lippitt]

Donkeys. 1880 originally.

[Cupramax]

Lippitt said:

We didn't have a full structural survey done but the 'middle' version (from what I can remember).

Fatal move on an older house I'd have thought. I think you've answered your own question there.

[Rollin]

I had the expensive survey before buying our 1890 house. They basically said that everything was old and would need replacing at some point. It was a waste of time really as they seemed to be covering their backs in case of a claim against them. Subsequent tradesmen seeing the house have said everything is fine ....for now

[Lippitt]

Not really. Unless the answer is 'Will I be doing that again' to which the answer is no.

My question is whether it should have been noticed on the survey I did have done, or whether that sort of thing is not covered.

[BuzzLightyear]

How long ago did you have the survey done / move in?

If it's comparatively recent, call the surveyors up and ask for their comments or perhaps a follow-up visit to look at this particular item. (I'm assuming no mention of it was made in the original report?).

Alternatively, get another decent builder round for a second opinion.

I wouldn't worry too much if I were you - if it's lasted 130 years, it'll probably be OK for a while yet (just don't take that wall down...)

HTH

[Soovy]

Lippitt said:

We didn't have a full structural survey done but the 'middle' version

Oh dear. Repent at leisure.

[Lippitt]

A year ago, so not that long ago. I'm not really worried it will fall down, it was tongue in cheek (and hopefully attention grabbing so more might reply ) but it will be annoying if we can't take this wall down. I'll draw a picture and show you why! Ps - no mention at all.

[Mr Pointy]

Surely the first step is get a structural engineer in to find out if you've got a problem. Then you can decide how much it's going to rectify (if anything as there may be no problem) & finally you can start talking to your original surveyor about whether he is liable.

At the moment surely the most important question isn't who might be at fault but whether you're going to die under a pile of masonry?

[Lippitt]

No, I'm a woman - I don't care if I die, I just care if I am RIGHT.

Anyway here is my rubbish picture so you can see what I mean.


I should say that you can get into the empty space by walking round the wall but it is a fairly useless size and the brick wall makes the room so dark. Another option he said is to leave a pillar of brick there, or build a wall at 90 degrees so it is still supported but we have a bit more useable space.

[Globs]

Hmmm, I expect that annoying wall is holding your house up.
You could always put in steels, but an extension may be cheaper.
A structural engineer's the chap you need to talk to.

[JR]

Assuming that that is the ground floor and there isn't a cellar then it looks like it would be easy to replace the wall with a column. Of course you need to study the floor plan of the house with a structural engineer who will size up the column and any foundation work that may be necessary. Maybe a 300x300 oak column or 200x200 square steel section clad depending on your house style.

[Lippitt]

Thanks JR, that's what we are now considering. It is ground floor and no cellar. We've kept the house fairly traditional so I think oak would be best.

Can anybody help with my original question of whether this ought to have been picked up on the survey? OR would a homeowners survey not cover that sort of thing?

[JR]

Lippitt said:

Thanks JR, that's what we are now considering. It is ground floor and no cellar. We've kept the house fairly traditional so I think oak would be best.

What material is the existing beam made from? Whatever material it is beams deflect. You can precamber steel to try to balance this out but it's very rare. How much deflection is it? Timber beams will warp as well as deflect. Even if the beam would have originall spanned the full width without a support the building will have settled into its present shape and removing the wall without a support will alter the status quo and cause cracking at the very least. Putting in a new column you'd hope to reuse the wall's foundations, even though the column will concentrate the load more. Worst case, inc bad ground would be a pad footing and mini piles but even that's straight forward from an engineering view. The most tricky is what's called keeping everything in plane - ie connections at the top and bottom of the column; this is where your structural engineer will earn his money. Regards, Jonathan

[Slagathore]

Lippitt said:

Thanks JR, that's what we are now considering. It is ground floor and no cellar. We've kept the house fairly traditional so I think oak would be best.

Can anybody help with my original question of whether this ought to have been picked up on the survey? OR would a homeowners survey not cover that sort of thing?

I'd imagine the old beam is structurally sound, so it probably wouldn't have been picked up on the survey. Sounds like you had a homebuyers report, which is basically just the bare minimum.

I can't see it being the surveyor's problem that you now want to remove a wall, so are questioning the old beam's integrity.

As said above, old oak/timber beams always bow, so the surveyor wouldn't have seen anything out of the ordinary when doing the survey.

[CedGTV]

Soovy said:

Lippitt said:

We didn't have a full structural survey done but the 'middle' version

Oh dear. Repent at leisure.

Ah, that will be the survey carried out in 2nd gear instead of 4th when passing the property.

Get a Structural Engineer in to check it out. May warrant a flitch beam sitting along side the sagging old girl.

[CedGTV]

Lippitt said:

Thanks JR, that's what we are now considering. It is ground floor and no cellar. We've kept the house fairly traditional so I think oak would be best.

Can anybody help with my original question of whether this ought to have been picked up on the survey? OR would a homeowners survey not cover that sort of thing?

It's all in in this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_surveyors_i...

Older property of that age would of warranted a Full Building Survey instead of a Homebuyer's Survey and Valuation

Edit: to add link

[scotal]

CedGTV said:

Full Building Survey

Which will still be chock full of information deliberatley minimising the surveyors liability to a PI claim, whilst telling the buyer approximately fk all about their property.

[Rude-boy]

I'm keeping out of this