The nervous wait to exchange....

[Mason-]

Further context:

Here is the front of the house I've drawn an arrow showing the chimney stack + pots:

This is the floorplan - red circle is where the chimney stack is on the ground floor, I've added numbers for the following 4 photos to come afterwards:

1.

2.

3.

4.

 

[Mr Jack]

I think because the walls aren't aligned upstairs and downstairs that they assumed the chimney breast dog legged going from ground floor to upper floor and so originally had an extra part of chimney breast at the ground floor. But that's easily verified. Measure from front wall to front of chimney breast, and from back wall to back of the chimney breast on both ground + upper floor. If they're the same, then the chimney breast is vertical and complete. I'm sure every surveyor has a tape measure.

The cheapo survey does not pay them to do this kind of thing, in fact they're cheap because they're not being paid to do this kind of thing. What you are calling "due diligence" is, in reality, a more expensive survey. The kind of survey you ended up paying for, for example.

That the surveyor was wrong in their assumption does not make it a bad assumption and does not mean they were negligent.

 

[Mason-]

The cheapo survey does not pay them to do this kind of thing, in fact they're cheap because they're not being paid to do this kind of thing. What you are calling "due diligence" is, in reality, a more expensive survey. The kind of survey you ended up paying for, for example.

That the surveyor was wrong in their assumption does not make it a bad assumption and does not mean they were negligent.

What you're suggesting to me doesn't make much sense. They're paid enough to make assertions, but they're not paid enough to check that their assertions make any sense. I don't understand why I have to foot the bill for this ridiculous dichotomy.

Also you're ignoring a point.

The assumption is the evidence. Not the assertion. The assertion was wrong, the evidence to substantiate the assertion was an assumption which was also wrong.

Fireplace removed from kitchen. Wrong.
Reasoning given, which was an assumption. Also wrong.

 

[Mr Jack]

What you're suggesting to me doesn't make much sense. They're paid enough to make assertions, but they're not paid enough to check that their assertions make any sense. I don't understand why I have to foot the bill for this ridiculous dichotomy.

They're paid to find potential problems. They found a potential problem, the second survey determined it wasn't a problem.

 

[Mason-]

They're paid to find potential problems. They found a potential problem, the second survey determined it wasn't a problem.

So then going by your logic they can literally walk into any house and do the following:

This whole house is going to ******* fall apart. <-- an assertion

Evidence please:

"Hurr durrr there was a supporting wall here because I said there was, I assume there was based on no cogent argument, and I'm going to give some waffly evidence that doesn't actually have a logical "this therefore that" following to it" <---- some lame assumption.


If they're going to make assertions + assumptions they better have convincing evidence for them. They didn't have any.


And in the example you've given above. The survey found that the 'potential problem they found' doesn't exist.

 

[Mr Jack]

It's obvious that you are annoyed and just want people to agree with you, so I'm not going to respond to this any further after this. I hope you can find a satisfactory outcome for your house, and it's a good home for years to come. If it helps, remember that in the big scheme of what you're paying here, that 500 is a sneeze in the wind.

So then going by your logic they can literally walk into any house and do the following:

No, obviously not.

If they're going to make assertions + assumptions they better have convincing evidence for them. They didn't have any.

No, the nature of an assumption is that you combine the simple available evidence - a flue roughly located above the kitchen, no fireplace in the kitchen - to a reasonable conclusion: the fireplace has been removed from the kitchen. An assumption that will be right the majority of the time, because removing flues from the kitchen is a run of a mill thing that happens to houses. In this case it was wrong. That will always happen with assumptions, they'll be wrong sometimes. Your assertion is that this is negligence but that does not follow from the evidence that you've presented to us; only that they were wrong.

 

[Mason-]

It's obvious that you are annoyed and just want people to agree with you, so I'm not going to respond to this any further after this. I hope you can find a satisfactory outcome for your house, and it's a good home for years to come. If it helps, remember that in the big scheme of what you're paying here, that 500 is a sneeze in the wind.

It doesn't help because I don't see why I should have to pay for this. I'm not here to ask for people to agree with me. I asked if I was right to complain. Considering your first response was to question whether the bank would even follow up with it suggests you think it's dubious too.

No, obviously not.

Why? They've just come in and assumed things. I'll go further in response to what you've posted below.

No, the nature of an assumption is that you combine the simple available evidence - a flue roughly located above the kitchen, no fireplace in the kitchen - to a reasonable conclusion: the fireplace has been removed from the kitchen. An assumption that will be right the majority of the time, because removing flues from the kitchen is a run of a mill thing that happens to houses. In this case it was wrong. That will always happen with assumptions, they'll be wrong sometimes. Your assertion is that this is negligence but that does not follow from the evidence that you've presented to us; only that they were wrong.

You're making a bunch of assumptions too.

Here's the gist of it. That chimney breast is within 4 rooms. It has 3 chimney pots, which might mean it has 3 flues, that's not definitely true but let's assume it is. 4 rooms, 3 flues, implies 3 of the 4 rooms had fireplaces in. 1 of the fireplaces is still there so that leaves 2 to account for. There is a vent in one of the bedroom photos so that was probably another one, so that leaves 1. Kitchen or other bedroom. Who knows? There's no evidence to suggest there was one in either.

So let's go over another point. Removal of a fireplace, i.e. removal of a mantle and blocking a chimney has no structural ramifications, mantles are decorative. So that's not in question here, what is in question here is a removal of a fireplace and also a partial removal of the chimey stack behind it.

So they've asserted that part of a chimney stack has been removed from the kitchen. If there was an extra part of the chimney stack in the kitchen, why would the window be where it is? Being half blocked by it? Also what evidence is there to suggest any part of the chimney stack had been removed? There isn't anyway, and they haven't provided any.


Considering you went armchair psychologist with this:

It's obvious that you are annoyed and just want people to agree with you,

I'll do the same and just say you're just being a contrarian.

However where I do agree with you is to just leave it here because frankly I'm fed up of talking about it. I'll let the thread know the outcome of my complaint.

 

[Basher]

They're paid to find potential problems. They found a potential problem, the second survey determined it wasn't a problem.

Exactly. The survey isn’t designed to give you a tonne of details, it’s designed to highlight potential issues which then you are responsible for getting the detail on. The survey for our property lasted all of about 5 mins.

 

[mid_gen]

Exactly. The survey isn’t designed to give you a tonne of details, it’s designed to highlight potential issues which then you are responsible for getting the detail on. The survey for our property lasted all of about 5 mins.

I'm pretty sure RICS would have something to say to any surveyor that took the urine like that

The basic homebuyer report is essentially an insurance policy though. They'll highlight anything that *might* be an issue, because if something that does turn up that they didn't warn about, they are liable for the cost of the remediation work.

 

[HungryHippos]

I'm pretty sure RICS would have something to say to any surveyor that took the urine like that

The basic homebuyer report is essentially an insurance policy though. They'll highlight anything that *might* be an issue, because if something that does turn up that they didn't warn about, they are liable for the cost of the remediation work.

Pretty sure Homebuyers isn't legally covering anything, need a level 3 survey I think to get that level of protection. Could be wrong though!

 

[koolpc]

Exactly. The survey isn’t designed to give you a tonne of details, it’s designed to highlight potential issues which then you are responsible for getting the detail on. The survey for our property lasted all of about 5 mins.

5 mins! Was he employed by lego?

 

[mid_gen]

Pretty sure Homebuyers isn't legally covering anything, need a level 3 survey I think to get that level of protection. Could be wrong though!

Don't have the building survey terms that I used earlier in the year. But the guy doing my homebuyers at the moment says :

I accept liability for negligence in carrying out my work and reporting to you up to a maximum amount equivalent to the diminution in the value of the property caused by my negligence.

So actually, a little different from the remediation cost...but still the liability is on their part if they miss something that impacts the value of the property.

 

[HungryHippos]

Don't have the building survey terms that I used earlier in the year. But the guy doing my homebuyers at the moment says :



So actually, a little different from the remediation cost...but still the liability is on their part if they miss something that impacts the value of the property.

For remediation work I think it's only on the higher level one then.

I reckon any liability costs are done via some kind of insurance the surveyor has.

 

[ProStreet]

Buying a 1920s detached house. Awaiting the building survey results next week.... Hope it's alright.

 

[koolpc]

Buying a 1920s detached house. Awaiting the building survey results next week.... Hope it's alright.

Always a nervous time. Hope it works out for you

 

[fastwunz]

The cheapo survey does not pay them to do this kind of thing, in fact they're cheap because they're not being paid to do this kind of thing. What you are calling "due diligence" is, in reality, a more expensive survey. The kind of survey you ended up paying for, for example.

That the surveyor was wrong in their assumption does not make it a bad assumption and does not mean they were negligent.

Have to agree with this. If there had been a stack removed with no adequate support then the bill could have been massive and you no doubt would have been trying to get the surveyor to pay for it because he assumed it was all ok.

I get your frustration but the basic valuation survey is relatively quick which is completely beyond the surveyors control. They have a duty to report on any concerns they may have and, whilst the evidence to your mind may be somewhat flimsy, to an experienced surveyor, the fact a third flue was there with no evidence of a stack leading to it was grounds enough to assume the worst until it was known for sure.

they could have saved you thousands of pounds in steel work had it been proved different so be thankful they made sure it was properly checked and certified before you moved in.

like I said, I do totally get your annoyance and feel bad for your wallet! Chin up and move on - looks like a lovely house

 

[Temujin]

Submitted a letter to the vendor through solicitors requesting a reduction based on the dilapidation of the boundary wall and the high cost to rectify, will see how that pans out as they have claimed the wall is "sold as seen" which i'm not sure is a thing, especially since it has been identified as in a dangerous condition.

Hopefully they'll be reasonable, as we aren't expecting them to cover the whole cost, and this is the last thing stopping exchange.

 

[koolpc]

Friend having a survey today on a small 2 bed property.

 

[roge8014]

Anyone else bought a property that has a "pathway" (which might be a PRoW) running through their rear garden? The property we're buying seems to have a path (shown on the Definitive Map) but there is no sign of the footpath in existence (seller has put up a fence and so has the neighbour).

I feel if it is a PRoW it'll have an effect on the valuation and if anyone makes a complaint that they can't use the path (even though it goes right through the neighbour property) the law is pretty much geared towards the footpath user. Also the path cuts diagonally across the rear garden, so it'll carve the garden into (plus we'd lose 2m width of the path). Both properties were originally built in 1955.

I fear we may have to back out of the sale and find another suitable property - and currently there isn't one!

 

[koolpc]

Ex father in law lives in a row of old terrace houses that has a private right of way right across the back of the terrace outside the back door. There is a narrow path between back door and rear garden along the whole terrace. He has lived there for 50+ plus years and not bothered by it as only the neighbours can use it as end gate is locked.

I am buying a house on the same row, couple of doors up from him. Only person who will use the ROW is my immediate neighbour on my left as the others are further down the row.

Obviously i would like the ROW removed but, it does have its advantages too.

I am looking at it as a 5 year investment and see how things pan out after that.