Mortgages and tie bars

[hisw]

We are in the process of buying a listed farmhouse in Norfolk dating back to 1600. We are having problems with the mortgage company and there surveyor.

To start with the surveyor said that there needs to be a £30k retention for damp and wood worm/death-watch beetle. I think we have got round this after having a specialist report done by a member of BWPDA. He has said the works needed total £1k. So bit more realistic.

The problem we are up against now is that the surveyor has ticked the box that says ‘has the property been underpinned or had other remedial works for subsidence’ the mortgage company initially turned us down because of this, so we got the surveyor (a very difficult process!) to give the mortgage company more information. So he has explained that there are tie bars in the property.

The mortgage company have now come back and asked to see the guarantee! I cannot get them to understand that these were put in over 100 years ago. What should I do now?

Has anyone had similar problems?

 

[Nemesis]

Out of interest - what damp and timber treatment has been specified? It's possible it doesn't require any treatment at all of course.

The tie bars - oh dear. Surveyors and mortgage companies are getting more and more difficult...

Ask the surveyor to give some sort of opinion about the probabilty of the place falling apart - bet you are told to pay for a building engineer's opinion.

If so get one who specialises in historic buildings. I hope the surveyor has some sort of expertise in them also. You say this is the mortgage company's surveyor - have you had an independant survey?

 

[DaveBrigg]

We had a similar problem with the mortgage company surveyor panicking about a crack in the gable wall. I managed to find a surveyor and his friend, a structural engineer who specialised in historic buildings. They confirmed that the crack was historic and that all we needed to do was rake it out and fill it with lime. (As well as confirming that adding a damp proof course would be a disaster, and replacing all the floors was unnecessary)
It cost £800 for the survey to tell the mortgage company what I had been told on this forum for free!

 

[hisw]

Hi

Thanks for your replies

The damp report has stated that there needs to be a chemical treatment of a couple of walls. I was just proposing to dig a French drain to lower the soil level outside to below the floor level as at the moment it is higher.

It just seems a bit mad. I have to pay for a servay/valuation, yet the mortgage company stipulates which survayor. If I could use a specialist then all of this could be avoided.

 

[Nemesis]

Chemical treatment - what is the house built from?

(And of course you would require LBC - which may not be given...)

Which is your local authority? Your CO might be able to help.

If the ground level is above the internal level - then that's probably, as you say, the cause of the damp - and chemical injection may well be more profitable for the 'expert' damp proofer than you digging your own French drain. It's all such a con.

I don't think the mortgage company can insist on you using a certain surveyor - not if you are paying. Not for your own full survey. That's not the same as a mortgage valuation.

 

[MdB]

It just seems a bit mad. I have to pay for a servay/valuation, yet the mortgage company stipulates which survayor. If I could use a specialist then all of this could be avoided.

I was able to use my own surveyor even though he wasn't on the list the mortgage company gave. Have you asked them if they will accept a report from your choice of surveyor?

(The report he gave to the mortgage company stated that the front wall was not up to spec and needed work. I was rather surprised when the mortgage company completely ignored this having heard of other horror stories.)

 

[hisw]

Its seems bit of a strange setup. From what I have worked out the lenders employ an agency who then employ the valuer / surveyor. The lender does not have any contact with the surveyor, they do not even know who they are.

We submitted the damp report to the lender, they then passed it to the agency and the surveyor then had to give his comments on it. From the posts above, is this guy only a valuer, not a building surveyor?

 

[Nemesis]

It sounds like he is the building society valuer - who will also be a surveyor, but his job is to value the building for the mortgage company and ensure that it's worth what they are lending. He's not really on your side!

However - the fact the building is listed means that injection damproofing may not be allowed - and may not be very desirable either.

This building isn't in Breckland is it??

 

[Gervase]

Nemesis is right - your first port of call should be the conservation officer for the local council in question, and your second should be a surveyor who specialises in older buildings (see the 'seeking specialists' section to the left of this page). Then inform the BS that you are appointing a specialist surveyor - an esteemed member of the RICS, of course - and that you will expect them to abide by his or her report coupled with the recommendations of the conservation officer.
BS surveyors and valuers are bloody useless!

 

[biffvernon]

This might not be relevant, but the tie bars in my house may have been part of the original construction in the mid 18th century so hardly evidence of later remedial work.

 

[Nemesis]

Now that you mention it:

http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521842020&ss=fro

 

[Stephen]

Gervase
I do hope that BS in your terminology means Building Society, because I usually use it for Building Surveyor!

hisw
As a Chartered Building Surveyor I hope my comments will help you.

Damp
I do not need to reiterate what has been said. If the mortgage company make a retention then you really do need to sort out what is needed (an injected DPC is unlikely!) and get a report they will accept and get them to be reasonable. If they are simly imposing a condition then agree to it and then ignore it. If they ever ask you what you did, tell them you sought independent advice and followed it.

Tie Bars
These are usually installed to provide lateral restraint - not usually anything to do with subsidence. I suspect you unfortunately had a rather ignorant surveyor who did not understand the different ways a building can move and how using the wrong terminology can cause no end of problems. From your description the tie bars are typically from around 100 years ago and probably inserted to prevent lateral movement, most likely due to thrust and load from above and/or a lack of lateral restraint in the structure. The tie bars may be related to subsidence if the subsidence resulted in outward rotation of the wall and tie bars were needed to halt this. In any event most modern work aims to hide restraint and therefore visible tie bars tend to be older works.

You need an independent report from a Chartered Building Surveyor or a Chartered Engineer with experience in dealing with historic buildings. They should be able to identify what has happened in the past and whether there is any ongoing problem or high risk of a problem in the foreseeable future.

As for the independent report you should be able to choose whoever you like, provided they are properly qualified and members of a recognised body (e.g. RICS).

With mortgages although you pay the report is not really for you and should not be relied upon. Yes, inappropriate comments from a mortgage valuer can cause problems, but these are usually surmountable with good advice from a professioal of your choosing acting for you. Yes it will cost you, but it could make the difference between getting the mortgage and not!

Hope this helps.

 

[Nemesis]

It could also mean not having to do expensive and unecessary work.

Andrew Gayton (Historic Buildings Officer, Breckland DC) who posts here has a standard letter he sends out to mortgage companies for people in this situation re injection damp proofing... he's posted the text here before, very helpful!

He reckons it never fails...

 

[Flyfisher]

This might not be relevant, but the tie bars in my house may have been part of the original construction in the mid 18th century so hardly evidence of later remedial work.

The C18 part of our house also has tie bars thought to be part of the original construction. Indeed, some later changes have been built over the external 'plates' (not sure what they're properly called).

It might be worth asking the surveyor why the tie bars are deemed to be evidence for subsidence rather than being part of the original design.

 

[Flyfisher]

If the mortgage company make a retention then you really do need to sort out what is needed (an injected DPC is unlikely!) and get a report they will accept and get them to be reasonable. If they are simly imposing a condition then agree to it and then ignore it. If they ever ask you what you did, tell them you sought independent advice and followed it.

This sounds risky to me. Regardless of whether an injected DPC is actually needed, if the mortgage company issue funds conditional on an injected DPC being installed then that is part of the contract. Even armed with independent expert advice about such a DPC not being necessary, you would be technically breaking your part of the mortgage contract.

Of course, one would hope that good sense prevails and the mortgage company accepts the independent expert advice, but when things are being driven from lists of tick boxes and a lack of detailed understanding, who knows what might happen.

I would rather present the independent expert advice before accepting the mortgage contract.

 

[Matt Green]

Of course, one would hope that good sense prevails and the mortgage company accepts the independent expert advice, but when things are being driven from lists of tick boxes and a lack of detailed understanding, who knows what might happen.

In two (of two) cases we have dealt with in the last 12 months where a chemical DPC has been insisted upon in a listed building the building society has accepted our reports and released the retention.

Matt Green

 

[Penners]

hisw - you've had lots of good and expert advice above.

Just one other (possibly slightly naive!) thought. If the only point at issue with the building society is the tie bars, can you not argue to them quite reasonably that, as the bars were put in 100 years ago, there is no guarantee available. But, as they have been successful at tying the building together for 100 years (much longer than any guarantee that might be issued nowadays), the bars have clearly demonstrated empirically that they have done their job effectively.

 

[Matt Green]

As for the independent report you should be able to choose whoever you like, provided they are properly qualified and members of a recognised body (e.g. RICS).

With mortgages although you pay the report is not really for you and should not be relied upon. Yes, inappropriate comments from a mortgage valuer can cause problems....

The irritating point being that the mortgage valuer will also be RICS accredited. Same qualification (on paper), yet wildly varying abilities and associated costs to the client.

The client can hardly be blamed for having a survey and then being told that what they actually need is a survey.


:?

Matt

 

[Nemesis]

The problem is - the BS will insist on an 'expert' opinion to say eactly that - which tis simply common sense.

A friend moved recently and had this problem - historic subsidence, which had obviously been successfully repaired, probably a hundred odd years' ago, but the surveyor insisted on having an engineer's report to say that the house wasn't about to collapse.

More expense...

 

[Johneds]

can you not argue to them quite reasonably that, as the bars were put in 100 years ago, there is no guarantee available. But, as they have been successful at tying the building together for 100 years... the bars have clearly demonstrated empirically that they have done their job effectively.

My regular structural engineer calls this the hundred year rule. If it's been there a hundred years and still looks ok - it will be there in another hundred years.