chimney support

[piper]

I'm Returning after lurking for a long time without posting to ask advice/opinions of all you knowledgeable people.

My son and his girlfriend are in the process of buying a Victorian terraced house. I have not seen it yet, but hope to go way down south and have a look next week. It seems in good order, but has had quite a lot of alteration inside over the years, including knocking-through of two rooms into one. The survey expresses concern that a chimney breast in the back part of the house (former kitchen, I think) has been removed.

I quote: "The rear chimneybreast has been removed from the roof space and lower portions. Although there are no obvious signs of structural distress, it is very important to ensure that this work was completed with building regulation approval. If no documentation exists in support of this alteration the support should be properly exposed and checked by a structural engineer."
The vendors have no documentation, as the alteration was done before their time i.e. over seven years ago.
As far as I can tell without having seen the house myself yet, the survey seems very thorough and sensible. It does make the usual noises about lack of a damp course, but otherwise seems to understand about period houses and is generally very level-headed, without going on excessively about damp-proofing.
My son is relatively unfazed by less-than-perfect houses, having been brought up in our house, but his girlfriend has been used to much more conventional levels of comfort - neither of them have the time to get involved in serious house repairs.

Should they be worried by that chimney? I'm inclined to think if it's been OK for several years it must have been done right and the surveyors are just covering themselves. Any expert opinions/relevant experience would be much appreciated.

 

[Penners]

Hello piper - welcome back.

If the alteration was done over 7 years ago and hasn't given any trouble so far, then it's reasonable to assume that it shouldn't suddenly start doing so when your son has bought the house.

But do you know for sure that it hasn't caused problems?

I suppose it's all a question of how much your son wants to make of this with the vendors. Does he want to get the price dropped a bit, does he want insurance against the lack of building regs approval (I'm not sure how long it takes for the requirement for approval to expire), does he want to try and get the vendors to pay for a structural engineer's report?

In fairness, the surveyor's report doesn't actually express concern about the structural work - only about the apparent lack of building regs approval. Your son's solicitor could check with the local authority whether this approval does, in fact, exist.

But ultimately, if he's fairly relaxed about questionable building practices, then he may not wish to bother with any of these.

 

[stuart45]

The vendors could apply for retrospective building regs. A situation was like this can hold up a sale, and your son could be in the same position when he sells.
When we moved about 8 years ago, our buyers had to get regs on a breast that was removed 20 years ago. Also there is no real proof of how long ago it was done. Stacks have been known to collapse quite a few years after the breasts were removed.

 

[Flyfisher]

Sigh. This sounds to me like one of those situations where the actual structure of the house (seven years after the work and no apparent problems) is probably quite sound but the slight possibility, however small, of future problems could cause issues with serious ramifications, including difficulty for a future sale and, possibly, insurance issues.

Personally, I would be open with the vendor and discuss the survey findings with them. The prospective buyers have paid good money for a survey and the recommendations should be considered carefully. I don't know how much retrospective building regulations and/or an assessment by a structural engineer (possibly more-or-less the same thing) would cost, but if there are no real problems found then I doubt it would be more than a few hundred pounds, i.e. very little as a percentage of the property value.

If the prospective buyers are very serious, i.e. prepared to make a firm offer, then I would make the offer, subject to the vendors paying for this survey and obtaining retrospective building regs. If everything turns out to be OK then the sale can proceed and the buyers will have no open issues going forward or if they decide to sell in the future. If a problem is discovered then at least it will be confirmed and, with a structural engineer involved, quantified. The buyers can then get quotes for suitable repair work, to be deducted from the offer price, or walk away.

Of course, the vendor is under no obligation to agree to such a proposal, in which case just reduce the offer price to allow for a full structural survey anyway.

 

[biffvernon]

My daughter has a shop in the town high street - just a rented building - it's early 19th century. Someone removed the chimney breasts and failed to support the stack above roofline. It was clearly a disaster waiting to happen and was revealed when daughter complained about the cracks in the cieling and rain coming in!

Point is, the whole issue was fixed for a few grand, some steel and a week of builders.

So when buying a house, an unsupported chimney stack need not be a deal breaker - just needs to be factored into the price.

 

[kevmiles1]

although the walls have been removed for a fair amount of time, for your own piece of mind, go in the loft and where the chimney stack is there should be gallows brackets bolted to the wall to hold up what is left of the stack and take the weight where once the wall was, if they are there you have nothing to worry about

 

[Penners]

That's a brave assertion, sight unseen, Kev!

 

[MatthewC]

I quote: "The rear chimneybreast has been removed from the roof space and lower portions.

Sorry to be dense but exactly what is left? I assume that, being at the back, it is a single storey? Is there a chimney stack above the roof? If there is any chimney structure left then it has to be supported properly, and Building Regs would give evidence of that. If there's no chimney structure at all, then why did the surveyor bother to comment?

 

[piper]

Many thanks to all who have replied - this is very helpful.

MatthewC: I have not yet been to the house, but I have discussed it with my son, read the survey (which is admittedly not very clear) and looked at the house in Google Earth. I will see it for myself on Monday.
It is a standard Victorian mid-terrace, with a protruding two-storey section at the back - also a single-storey attached "outbuilding" section, which has been incorporated into the kitchen by knocking through the wall, and which has its own problems not relevant to this enquiry.
There are therefore two party walls in the front part of the house, and the back "kitchen section" also has one party wall and one wall with a door opening to a narrow bit of garden which gives access to the main garden behind the property. The roof plan over each pair of houses in the terrace is a T shape, and therefore an L shape over each individual house. Difficult to describe, but extremely common and familiar. The chimney stack in question is in the party wall between the back-kitchen (with back bedroom over) rear sections, and the chimney exists above roof level. However, any original chimney breast seems to have been removed in the two rooms below - and according to the survey also in the roof space, though it would seem that the "main" loft area over the front of the house is easy to inspect, but the rear bit much more difficult. I will try to have a good look when I visit, but it could be difficult when in the presence of estate agent and probably also vendor.
I agree it seems odd - maybe there never was a chimney breast as such, and the whole flue was within the thickness of the walls, in which case the surveyor missed the fact. Is this likely? I will get a much better idea when I see it.

Anyway, thanks again for all the comments. Incidentally, I may decide to edit out the survey quote in due course, in case the surveyor should chance to read it - extremely unlikely, but there's a sentence which says "no part may be reproduced...."
I sometimes think we all expose too much of our affairs on internet forums which then remain for all time in the public domain. But that's a different subject which has been discussed here before.

 

[Flyfisher]

The "no reproduction" thing is interesting; I wonder why? Is the surveyor not willing to stand by his report? It must surely be 'reasonable use' to quote parts of such a report, otherwise how could anyone seek further advice about the matter. Doesn't report belong to the purchaser? You could always paraphrase if you're really worried.

 

[Penners]

Do you think it might exist more as some sort of protection against any risk of litigation by the vendor? If the information is strictly confidential to the prospective purchaser, perhaps it reduces the risk of libel suits.

 

[Flyfisher]

Could be, though it seems a bit strange to be in the business of selling professional advice and then limiting who can see that advice. If the advice is good then isn't that suffcient protection?

Yes I know, too simplistic by half, and the world is a big bad place, but I can dream can't I?

 

[biffvernon]

If I wanted to buy advice and the adviser said it must be kept secret I would not pay for the advice. If he has so little confidence in his advice that it cannot be held up to public scrutiny then I would have no confidence in the advice.

Publish and be dammed!

 

[Penners]

it seems a bit strange to be in the business of selling professional advice and then limiting who can see that advice.

Really? Surely any professional advice, by its nature, is a paid-for service. So you only want it to be seen by the person who's shelling out for it.

 

[Penners]

Publish and be damned!

That's a great phrase! Someone should use it.

 

[Flyfisher]

it seems a bit strange to be in the business of selling professional advice and then limiting who can see that advice.

Really? Surely any professional advice, by its nature, is a paid-for service. So you only want it to be seen by the person who's shelling out for it.

Certainly it's a paid for service, so surely the buyer has every right to do with it what they wish? Perhaps if the author was acknowledged then reproducing an extract might be the sort of 'acceptable use' that allows anyone (I believe) to quote from published and copyrighted works.

Having said that, if the contract states that the advice is private to the buyer then the buyer should abide by the contract terms - I just don't really see why the vendor would include such a term, for the reasons that Biff expressed. Perhaps it's not possible to 'own' advice, even though you might own a paper report, so reproduction of the advice without permission would be a breach of the advice-owner's rights, i.e. the surveyor.

But it seems to be an increasingly common sort of thing. Almost all commercial software is only licenced to the buyer, i.e. you only buy the right to use the software (and usually with no guarantee that it will actually work reliably!), and it's much the same with music and video. Of course, almost everyone technically breaks the music and video laws - perhaps it's the same with these surveys and similar professional reports?

What a minefield! I suppose that's why intellectual property lawyering can be a lucrative profession.

 

[Pford75]

Reminds me of our experience when purchasing our current home. We had found a property before this one and commissioned a full structural survey, from a surveyor specialised in old buildings. However, the report was so full of caveats, that it was next to useless (I could see myself that "the kitchen is in need of updating"), but the 'weasel words' took two whole pages.

The vendors of that property withdrew their property from the market after accepting our offer and so we wasted over £4000 on surveys, mortgage fees and legal costs. When we found our current home, we decided not to bother with the survey (we knew the property required a lot of work and felt the money saved was better put towards that work). We haven't regretted that decision at all.

Back to the OP's problem - our first home was a Victorian mid-terrace and had a similar issue. The rear extension in this case was single story (not double as in yours) and the chimney breast had been removed to 'knock through' the kitchen. Seems this was a popular 'alteration' in many of the houses in the terrace. Almst all of them seemed to have removed the breast, but kept the stack above the roof. Personally, I doubt that B.Regs will come and hassle you...you must form your own view on whether it is structurally sound. As others have said, a lot depends on the relationship with the vendor, the purchase price and how much your family want the house. You could use it as a negotiating tool ("I'll sort this, but please drop the price by xxx") or you highlight it and ask for them to fix it.

Personally, i'd go with the former. That way, you can ensure the work is done to your standard...or spend the cash elsewhere in the property.

 

[Penners]

Perhaps it's not possible to 'own' advice

I reckon an awful lot of consultants will pray that you're wrong! :wink:

 

[Penners]

What a minefield! I suppose that's why intellectual property lawyering can be a lucrative profession.

As a matter of interest, here's the British Library's view on the matter. I just hope that I'm not infringing their copyright by quoting it!

As you observed, it's a minefield, and seems to distil down to your (or some lawyer's) definition of "harm".

The Copyright Act of 1988 makes it clear that, unless it is for criticism or review purposes (under the fair dealing provisions of the CDPA 1988), it is an infringement of copyright to quote or copy a substantial part of a work in copyright without permission. However, it does not define what is meant by a substantial part: legal precedents indicate that not only the length of the part, but also the significance of the part and the use that is made of it are to be taken into account. Thus copying a significant small part which could harm the copyright owner could be an infringement, and copying a large part or in some cases even an entire work could be permissible if there is no harm to the copyright owner.

 

[Flyfisher]

Perhaps it's not possible to 'own' advice

I reckon an awful lot of consultants will pray that you're wrong! :wink:

Fair point, and my fault for not being concise; how about "perhaps it's not possible to 'own' someone else's advice"?