pete wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:51:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
pete wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:17:55 -0000, mark wrote:
"Duncan Di Saudelli" wrote in message
...
Hello

We're buying a detached house, built in the 1960-69 period. It's standard
construction as far as I can see (bricks, don't know about cavity wall,
tiled roof)and is on an established housing estate. There's been an
extension built at some stage, ading an upstairs bedroom and a downstairs
dining room. The extension seems well-done to me, and there are no obvious
signs of cracks in the brickwork etc. but note that I know almost nothing
about building houses or extensions.

I suspect that a standard "homebuyer's survey" would have sufficed but I
decided to be extra sure, hence going the extra 250 quid for the building
survey. Apart from asking the surveyor to pay particular attention to the
electrical wiring and the flat roof that makes up the attached garage and
utility room area, what other things might you suggest that I ask the
surveyor to highlight? I have only ever had a homebuyer's survey done
before, so I don't know how much extra detail I should expect for my
outlay or what I should be entitled to ask for specifically.

TIA for opinions based on your experiences

DDS




One thing I do know is surveyors don't like being told what to look out for.
I would imagine that a large proportion of the surveyors fees is for
insurance or indemity fees etc.
A surveyor can only see what you can see. However he will be better at
interpreting cracks and other apparent defects.
I think a lot of people use the surveyor as a negotiating tool as he's bound
to find something which you can use to get at least his fee off the asking
price.

I've bought several properties but have never used a surveyor. I don't need
to pay £500 to be told it's a pile of junk, or that the gutter leaks, when I
can see that for myself.
I got "proper" surveys done for the first house I bought as I hadn't a clue
about building and also for the second - mainly because it seemed the "done"
thing. However both of them were entirely useless, as said they didn't check
anything obscure (electrics, plumbing etc.). Neither did they move any furniture
or lift any carpets to check for damp / rot / woodworm or anything else.
They do seem to be a complete waste of time and money and only made superficial
recommendations couched in terms like "could" "might" "may" etc. They didn't
even test that the central heating worked!

The report was mainly just a run-through of the things anyone could see from
a cursory glance: room sizes, state of D.G. comments about the decorative state
of the places and whether there was gas and/or electric points in the rooms.

So my view now is that unless the house has recently been redecorated before
being put on the market (a sign of trying to hide something?) then I can see
just as many cracks, damp spots or loose roof tiles as a surveyor.
The only possible advantage a survey could have is to try to get something
knocked off the purchase price, but a little hard-nosed negotiation would get
that anyway.

Or have someone to sue when it falls down.

Well, yes. Indemnity is one of the benefits of having an expert make an assessment.
However, there were so many areas that were either excluded or made wishy-washy
observations: "may" "could" "might" etc. that I doubt any action could be
brought for the superficial and inconsequential observations that filled the bulk
of the reports.

Indeed.

At the end of the day the price is a negotiation. Some people like to
have a surveyors report to give their bargaining position credibility.
When I bought this place it was in dire condition, but I couldn't be
bothered to nitpick. I juts said 'all the mortgage company will lend me
is X, take it or leave it'

They took it. It was a complete lie.