How much use is a survey, given that we've had a (few) good looks round the property, had the carpets up, et al? There are only two things of note - a bulge in the ceiling, and a crack in a common corner of bedrooms 2 and 3 and the outside wall. Would a Building Survey be likely to a) see these, b) investigate them, and c) give us a good idea what they mean cost-wise, etc.?

The property's otherwise in good condition for a 'inner town house' in Arbourthorne, and was probably built in the 1920's.


Silk

----
I almost had a psychic girlfriend, but she left me before we met

If you have already noticed a couple of things that obviously concern you enough to ask the question it would seem sensible to have a more detailed survey.

The surveyor will do the level of survey that you pay for, which can vary. Surveys can vary from a visual inspection where they dont even lift carpets, to a full survey where they will inspect everything, test walls for damp, electrics, plumbing, etc.

The best thing to do is to speak to the surveyor that will do the work and tell them what you have already noticed. That will gear them up to check these things and they will be able to advise you what's best in your situation. A full structural survey will often pick up lots of things that seem scary but at least you will know.

I personally would do it seperately from the mortgage so that you don't worry your mortgage company if you have one.

Hi there!

If there are a few things you noticed point them out to your Surveyor. I have noticed though from qualified surveyors (which I will be shortly!) that they don't like being told the problem areas by their clients.

Get a more detailed inspection and report, its always good in the long run too incase other problems arise (most of which have roots from prior faults, so if you know them you will be forewarned and forearmed!)

Its a bit like this...I went to my doctor once, told him I had a problem and gave him a batch of possible diagnosis....

he response was thus "Tell me the problem, but don't tell me my job aswell.."

Can't argue with that!

1Man&HisBMW

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Its a bit like this...I went to my doctor once, told him I had a problem and gave him a batch of possible diagnosis....

he response was thus "Tell me the problem, but don't tell me my job aswell.."

Can't argue with that!

1Man&HisBMW

Ah yes.. the old 'doctor knows best' bedside manner. Unfortunately that attitude killed my Mother. :mad:

At the end of the day you are most certainly employing a surveyor for their knowledge, but any surveyor worth employing would welcome any initial comments or concerns that you have.

If they say otherwise, I would argue with it and quite frankly I wouldn't employ them.

(BTW I employ surveyors on a regular basis)

Originally posted by Tony
Ah yes.. the old 'doctor knows best' bedside manner. Unfortunately that attitude killed my Mother. :mad:

At the end of the day you are most certainly employing a surveyor for their knowledge, but any surveyor worth employing would welcome any initial comments or concerns that you have.

If they say otherwise, I would argue with it and quite frankly I wouldn't employ them.

(BTW I employ surveyors on a regular basis)

Sorry to hear that about your mother Tony.

You employ a surveyor not only for their knowledge, but also peace of mind. No doubt you will check they are insurance backed incase of any failings, so don't worry its in their interests to find everything the house throws up in problems aswell.

I know most surveyors don't like being disturbed or talked to whilst doing a thorough survey (structural etc) as they are then at risk of missing something, and leaving them open to the client suing their a$$es off.

In this case its not a 'Dr. knows best' but more of a chance to concentrate on the job at hand.

Tony, why do you employ many surveyors?

1M&HB

My worry is that the surveyor will go into the house, see the problems I already know about, and tell me that I should get someone in to look at them (like, what am I paying you for!?)

Yes, he might spot some other stuff but I'm a 'reasonably compentent surveyor' myself (as per their disclaimer) and I've already checked for dodgy plaster, damp, etc.

Errr.. so why are you asking the question then seeing as you're as 'reasonably competent surveyor' who has got this professional surveying lark sussed?

Just go ahead and spend tens or hundred of thousands of pounds on a property without the comfort of spending a few hundred quid on an 'actually competent surveyor'.

Some people never learn! Caveat emptor. :roll:

If you are seeking a mortgage, it is quite usual for the lending company to insist that a survey is done, so they can be sure that the house is worth its value. For instance if you default on payment and do a runner, they can sell the house and get their money back. If it's not worth the money as it's a rotting house that wasn't spotted at the time, then they lose money. Often lending companies will do the survey for free (or as free as possible, you usually get charged somewhere else for it) but if you want to know more than the basic survey you can pay for the additional expense yourself.

When i'm qualified I will do a special offer - first 10 surveys for forum members free of charge!

People usually want a surveyor to come in and recommend a course of action, or even sometimes as an indemnity (incase the crap hits the fan, always got the surveyor to blame).

In certain cases the surveyor on looking will not be able to tell you the fault. Is the crack in the wall just a surface irregularity or is the back of the house trying to come away from the front? This might take a while to establish, with the cracks being measured over time etc. thats just one example.

A surveyor is putting their professional career on the line, that is their home, family and food on the table for their kids, so they are pretty well compelled not to make costly mistakes. Surveyors are generally not too hot in the trade if they have been found to have been sued umpteen times for incompetance in the job.

So if they do recommend something which is say more extensive, they are safeguarind their livelihood aswell as your investment by asking for a second opinion.

In the same situation I would not sign anything off I was even 1% unsure about. You have to go on gut feeling sometimes, but you should make that clear to the client / lenders at the time, so they are aware.

Best Regards.

1M&HB

Originally posted by SilkKendiron

The property's otherwise in good condition for a 'inner town house' in Arbourthorne, and was probably built in the 1920's.


Silk

silk;

the older, typically "council" type houses in Arbourthorne were built in 1935/8. (my father's home in that district has a construction date of 1935) they are not as early as the '20's

The newer housing (eg the flats and the "vic hallam" and "finnegan" flat roofed "prefab"-ish properties) was built in the late 60's, the newer properties around hallyburton, erskine and madehurst are early 70's, on the whole with the odd pocket here and there that are a little newer than that.

The finnegan house I lived in was constructed in 1967. the hollow-walled, flat-rooved prefab design do not make them a very good investment if you are buying, (despite what my neighbour thought, bless her... she had this idea that, if she bought her house, she'd be a cut above everyone else. problem was ,she wasn't, she isn't, and never will be, despite all the practice she had, looking down her nose, complaining about the "noise" of a 14 month old baby, chucking and playing in it's playpen, on a gentle sunny afternoon on the patio... what a nice lady....)

However! back on topic! If you *really* have to buy in that area, and *really* have to buy an ex-local authority property, you are better going for the brick-built ones with the proper, pitched (sloping) rooves

The older style houses are not that bad, construction-wise; they are brick-built and fairly sturdy. Most have had double-glazing installed recently, (which most finnegan properties haven't had done) as well as wall-insulation. if the kitchen has been knocked through into the storm porch, loo and "coal-house" then you will have a reasonable-ish sized kitchen. (they can feel a bit poky, otherwise)

PT

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
So if they do recommend something which is say more extensive, they are safeguarind their livelihood aswell as your investment by asking for a second opinion.

In the same situation I would not sign anything off I was even 1% unsure about.

This is what's basically worrying me: what's to stop the surveyor going "that might be a problem" and recommending a second opinion - for everything!? It's a 'reasonably competent' thing to do, so they could probably laugh off anyone trying to sue them - which is my problem, Tony, with that disclaimer - it covers the surveyor against almost everything bar not actually turning up!

It's a good point, whoever made it (sorry!), that they might spot something the buyer's missed - and I'm already getting a full survey done - but has anyone reading this had any experience of surveyors finding more than the obvious? Or more than they'd seen? Or of not finding anything much!?

Originally posted by Plain Talker
you are better going for the brick-built ones with the proper, pitched (sloping) rooves

That's what we're getting! *phew*

Well Silk, that is surely the point isn't it? You're paying the Surveyor to find things. It's unreasonable for them to carry the can for anything that would be 'unreasonable' and it wouldn't stand up in a court anyway.

Basically you are paying them for their professional opinion, and that is what you wlll get. Trust them and you should be OK. Don't get too hung up on the 'disclaimer', it's not there to wriggle out of something, it's there because it's common sense.

If they miss something that a properly qualified professional should see then you will have plenty of recourse. I doubt that they will though. But on your original worry, they won't be interested in scaring the pants off you by if there is no need to. :thumbsup:

Silk, you seem to being a little on the pessimistic and paranoid side.

Yes, in all professions you get people who will botch a job and charge you over the odds for it.

Yes to be honest for most properties the surveyor will probably not tell you anything that you didn't suspect or know already, but they look at hundreds of properties, how many have you ever seriously looked at? They may be able to reassure about something that looks worse than it is, or warn you about something that looks like almost nothing to you but may end up you having to sort out at great expense at a later date.

What a surveyor is never going to say is either "yes, this house is wonderful and you are totally right to buy it" and "this is an absolute shambles and I wouldn't take it if they were giving it away" you don't get those certainties, at the end of the day it is your decision, they are just providing a little professional advice, and professional advice costs a lot - so just make sure you get a surveyor you trust - phone around and talk to some.

As the above states!

Surveyors provide a professional opinion, which is well off the mark will be backed by their insurance if they get sued.

In most cases they won't recommend other surveyors look at it all over again, just that if there is something that concerns them, sometimes a structural engineer might be required. One such case would be wall tie failure (the outer wall starts to push away at the top usually under load from the roof from the inner wall on a cavity wall construction). Sadly the surveyor cannot see through the walls, hence it might need opening up, so a structural engineer may be called to check the extent of the problem.

The small print isnt really that bad, it wouldnt cover a surveyor for not noticing something which was obvious or had tell tale signs of developing.

If I was fully qualified I would have done it for you for free, being the nice chap I am :)

If I was to recommend a firm to you, try Mark Jenkinson & Sons on Norfolk Row, Sheffield CC. Very professional and interested enough to treat their clients with a good degree of respect.

1M&HB

Surveyors
Are much better when they have actually worked in the building trade for a few years and have some practical experience. Some tw.t in a suit and a torch poking his head in the loft is a real waste of money. Far too cosey with the estate agents and building societies if you ask me.

Originally posted by dragonsoup
Surveyors
Are much better when they have actually worked in the building trade for a few years and have some practical experience. Some tw.t in a suit and a torch poking his head in the loft is a real waste of money. Far too cosey with the estate agents and building societies if you ask me.

I have to agree with the building trade bit. It does help knowing how they are put together - but lets not confuse a VALUER with a BUILDING SURVEYOR. Any chartered surveyor has to do a minimum of two years APC before even being allowed to submit a request to be chartered.

Poking your head into the loft is usually associated with a general valuation survey- head and shoulders survey as its also known - (usually for a lender) and not a full survey.

Hope it 'elps!

Sorry dragonsup, you're wrong. I have come across numerous people 'in the building trade' that don't even know how to do it in the first place, never mind be able to anylyse faults. Let the surveyors do their jobs, and let the builders do theirs.

Originally posted by Tony
Sorry dragonsup, you're wrong. I have come across numerous people 'in the building trade' that don't even know how to do it in the first place, never mind be able to anylyse faults. Let the surveyors do their jobs, and let the builders do theirs. I take it youve not worked in the building trade then Tony?

Have to disagree with Tony on this one.

I work with surveyors and builders and can safely say many builders know alot more about the actual putting together of the buildings than the academic surveyor. Not to say though that any one of them is better than another, but on certain house types you will find the builder or surveyor will have more knowledge of things to look for.

I know a few builders who are on the surveying degree, and i tell you something, they are hitting the 90% + mark most of the time.

1Man&HisBMW

Originally posted by dragonsoup
I take it youve not worked in the building trade then Tony?
I'll let you into a little secret - I've never worked in anything else since leaving school. ;)

I have enough extensive real life experience to be able to say what I did.


Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Have to disagree with Tony on this one.

I work with surveyors and builders and can safely say many builders know alot more about the actual putting together of the buildings than the academic surveyor. Not to say though that any one of them is better than another, but on certain house types you will find the builder or surveyor will have more knowledge of things to look for.

I know a few builders who are on the surveying degree, and i tell you something, they are hitting the 90% + mark most of the time.

1Man&HisBMW

You will find as you go through your working life that there are reasons why there are lots of different skills and professions. I'm not saying that ALL builders don't know, but I know, from personal real life experience, there there are loads that don't.

Construction is a transitory trade for many people, unlike Chartered Surveyor's. The one's on your course are hardly a typical example.

The brickies on the forum would be mightily fed up if a surveyor came along and started laying bricks.

I said a simple thing before. To let each do his own trade. I don't see why you have a problem with that.

This might be a reason why the construction industry is still in the dark ages. Maybe if people learned a little more about each other involvement then there wouldnt be so much complication from the offset - and maybe more people would see it as being more long term than they do at present.

As a surveyor, you can learn a hell of alot from an experienced builder. I agree not all builders will have the same technical knowledge as say a surveyor, but they have practical experience (which most surveyors don't have). What i am saying is, its only in the interest of the trade that they can work together, and know more about each others jobs. We go to see them on site, we see stages of housebuilding etc. but do we ever get builders coming in and seeing what we do? Nope.

An example of this might be, when the RICS absorbed some other smaller organisations, many of their members had only practical experience to show, but were given RICS status in their field of knowledge. Chartered....but never went through the degree we have to do today. Many of the older surveyors (esp. in the council) have got RICS accredited this way aswell. Many were joiners, builders etc.

I suppose its a bit like a briccy that wants to gain another form of recognition of his knowledge - similar to how some people might do a masters to broaden their knowledge in a certain field.

I dont have a problem with people who want to stick to their trade, and doing just that - but in this industry its about time people learned a bit more about each others role so we can get the industry out of the somewhat lame appeal it has at present.

From you previous post an extract of which I quote

"Ah yes.. the old 'doctor knows best' bedside manner....."

That would say to me that you are not entirely sure you can handle people sticking to their own trade without you knowing whats going on yourself or trusting them to that extent. If you can't trust the 'professional' how can you suggest people should stick to their trade?

What I am saying is if more people in the trade knew more about each others work, its not a bad thing. It might help in scooping up the ***** well before it hits the fan.

You have hit the nail on the head. It's about working together and creating teams that are stronger than the constituent parts. Each member has a primary role that they should be allowed to get on with, after all that is why they are there. The team liaises and achieves an end result.

You are worrying too much about the polarisation of roles. That isn't really what construction in all its forms is about.

I would have a specific worry about any old tradesman turning up to do a survey, just like I wouldn't expect a surveyor to start fixing doors.

Like I said before, construction on the manual side is very often a transient trade. That doesn't belittle for a moment the talents of many many people. You might recall another recent thread where a couple of brickies and I discussed the sad demise of straight perps (I hope you know what they are! :) )

From personal experience.. well I didn't go to University before getting a job, I was effectively 'pupilled' so I learned my trade (professional that it is) by starting as a junior on a £38/week and actually doing it 4/5 days a week whilst studying 25 hours a week on top. I worked all the overtime I could because I enjoyed it and because I needed it to make anything like an income, which even with overtime was way below poverty levels. As a result I did and still do work a 65+ hr week, but my income has gone up a little. :)

After 5 years I gained my qualifications yet had an in depth knowledge because I spent time on site as well as in the office. The one thing I did learn was to let the 'expert' do their job, whilst at the same time having a full knowledge of how they were supposed to do it. That's the only way that you can instruct on and snag work and retain their respect - you have to simply be right!

So you see, we almost agree with each other. :thumbsup:

Forums are great hey! ;)

I see where your coming from, and if it shifts the industry into a quicker forward gear then its got to be good :)

I reckon we are in agreement on this one :)

Just as a matter of interest, do you work for yourself now, or do you work for a PLC or something?