Period building - Would you trust a sellers survey

[pambrose]

This time next year, when you come to sell your property, you will need a Home Information Pack (they used to be called Sellers Packs). In the pack (HIP) is a new survey called a Home Condition Report, which is equivalent to a type 2 survey.

We hear that buyers of period properties usually commission full building surveys, and hence carrying out a such a home inspection on such properties would be a waste of time. However, actual figures of the numbers of surveys carried out on period properties are almost impossible to come by.

I am interested in people's experiences with surveys on period buildings - do they make a difference on the decision to buy, would a poor survey put you off a "classic" building, and would you rely on a survey that you didn't commission?

Thanks in advance

Peter

----------------------------------------
The Partnership
----------------------------------------
Home Information Pack Specialists

 

[mardinor]

I would always commission a full structural survey on a period building, but only by a surveyor with a reputation for understanding such buildings (which is very few).

Such a survey would only put me off if it identified work which was not reflected in the price. Most surveys sound horrific if you don't know what to expect and how to interpret them.

I would never trust a survey commissioned by someone else. If it is positive I would not trust it and if negative would want confirmation!!

However, there is potentially one up-side in the HIP proposals for buyers. Most people will use surveyors who do not understand period properties and so will paint an inappropriately negative picture (requirement for chemical dpc, woodworm treatment ,etc). Smart buyers know this is often bunkum and such proplems can be ignored or solved cheaply, hence there may be opportunity to snap up stigmatised properties at good prices! Unfortunately, this cuts both ways so is only effective when trading down or buying a period house for the first time.

 

[Matt Green]

From the point of view of an independent damp and timber consultant, putting the onus on the vendor to get the house checked is good for the building in that the vendor is more likely to want an independent opinion than the buyer. The majority of our private owner work is for vendors/owners of period buildings worried that an insensitive survey will cost them money and/or damage the building.

I think it depends entirely on who conducts the survey and how knowledgable the buyer is.

Matt Green

 

[biffvernon]

I certainly wouldn't want to pay for a survey, Hips or otherwise, when buying a house. Once, at the insistence of a mortgage company, I had a survey which was worse than useless as it resulted in unnecessary and damaging work being done. I did employ a structural engineer to solve a particular problem in a barn conservation job but that's as near as I would want to go to a surveyor.

What we need is better education about how houses are constructed and what one ought to do on the very rare occasions when they are in danger of falling down. The survey industry has made us a nation of building hypochondriacs, frightened of damp, cracks and woodworm. We need to be reminded that houses are actually rather like the building blocks we played with at age two. You put one brick on top of another and the rest is just titivation.

 

[Penners]

Well said Biff! The only surveys I have ever had done on houses were those required by building societies. And they serve only one purpose - to reassure the society that the building is worth more than the sum they have been asked to lend against it.

I usually crawl around a house I'm planning to buy with a torch and a pair of knee pads, looking for any telltale signs of problems, but that's only so that - if I proceed with the purchase - I'll know what to start tiffling about with first.

It's probably true that the "home inspectors" (or whatever they're called) who will do HCR's will draw potential purchasers' attention to things like a bit of damp, a few cracks and so on. But on the whole I don't see this as a bad thing. It means that - once you have accepted an offer - the potential purchaser can't then come back and start trying to whittle away at the agreed price. The "faults" are already known when the deal is done.

 

[Carol]

We 'only' had a home buyers report and it was hard enough to find a surveyor for that who had any idea what he was looking for. I think this aspect of the new style report may be an asset in that the seller, owner of a 'period' building, would employ a 'proper period house surveyor' who can inform and educate the new buyer. Or perhaps I should take off my rose tinted specs! And does the seller choose the inspector?

 

[Penners]

Carol

In practice, I suspect that estate agents will probably commission the inspector on the seller's behalf - or have "qualified" inspectors on their team.

 

[Chris Somerset]

Carol - I am afraid that the proportion of home inspectors who are RICS building surveyors with a post-graduate qualification in Building Conservation will be statistically zero.

I recently bought a home with a small area of damp on one exterior wall. On the survey £1000 of damp-proofing work was recommended. I solved the problem by stripping off the cement plaster and replacing with tongue and groove on plastic battens, ventilated at top and bottom, and by clearing a blocked drain. Cost about £50. I am sure this is fairly typical...

 

[Jocelyn]

One could assume that many period property buyers are reasonably conversant with historic building construction and that they would actively seek out a well qualified conservation accredited surveyor. The resulting building report is likely to be a document which can be trusted and discussed further, so holding no shock horrors.

In the ideal world, money crunching providers would be less greedy and pay out for good survey practice, using people with the right skill for the property instead of assuming that a multiple choice tick box will cover all the issues.

A professional building survey would not put me off buying a period property, unless I had really miscalculated all the factors, whereas a cursory tick list recommending 'treatments' would give me plenty to be suspicious about.

We need to get the message across to the 'first time' period home owner that there is a difference between good practice and money crunching; and, I suppose, raise awareness that it is not worth skimping on the fee for a 'proper' survey.

As a period property enthusiast, add me to the list that says 'I always have a full building survey carried out by an accredited surveyor of my own choice' and would not rely on the basic report for a mortgage provider. ( This latter, that caused me so much angst, posted recently, has an extremely rude word scrawled across it since the one 'fault' he picked up was in direct conflict with the full building survey that I had commissioned before applying for a mortgage.)

By the way,for how long is a survey considered valid, could it be included in the HIP if within so many years?
Jocelyn

 

[NT]

To start with I dont trust buyers surveys, let alone sellers. The limited experience I've had with those tells me not to trust them.

Secondly surveyors of all kinds are mostly not pp experts, and it shows, typically with false positive diagnoses and inappropriate recommended works.

3rd carelessness seems to be the MO fo so many professionals these days, including many that ought to know better.

4th I dont really think the sort of standards good professional surveyors aim for really match the realities of period properties. In a typical pp there will be almost nothing that meets modern building regs, and this is generally not a problem in any way. Wobbly uneven entrance steps are considered acceptable, despite being one of the highest risk of all house features, yet modern work that doesnt meet BR in some irrelevant way is considered cause for a paperwork storm.

When I say irrelevant, I mean irrelevnt in the case of the property involved. An example might be extending a corridor too narrow to meet modern day BRs, and doing so at the same width.

And finally, there is the question of numbers. When you need 10x as many skilled people of a given task, the skill level can only go down, since youre picking the top 10n % instead of the top n%. Then theres the lack of training... its a mess.


NT

 

[Ian Bond]

I'd never rely on a vendor's survey, and I wouldn't take much notice of a survey on a period building unless it was carried out by someone with relevant experience and knowledge of the subject.

After 10 years trying to fix my crummy old cottage, I think I've got a better idea of what to look for now. And so I'd do as Penners has already said - get out my trusty torch and kneepads (ooh me poor old creaky knees) and have a good old poke around myself!

 

[Penners]

In the ideal world, money crunching providers would be less greedy and pay out for good survey practice, using people with the right skill for the property instead of assuming that a multiple choice tick box will cover all the issues.

And John Prescott would be a toilet cleaner at Waterloo Station.

 

[Jocelyn]

In the ideal world, money crunching providers would be less greedy and pay out for good survey practice, using people with the right skill for the property instead of assuming that a multiple choice tick box will cover all the issues.

And John Prescott would be a toilet cleaner at Waterloo Station.

That would be an insult to the toilets. Jocelyn

 

[Johneds]

As a chartered surveyor I have carried out hundreds of surveys for buyers and I would guess that in about 50% of cases my clients have been able to negotiate a reduction in the price of the property to at least the cost of the survey and in most cases much more. On top of that I have occasionally picked up serious defects that would not have been noticed by the average buyer. In those cases clients have saved themselves thousands of pounds and much grief.

Now, it is easy for all you experts to scoff at how useless and unnecessary we surveyors are but many people have been very satisfied with the service I have given and those people are not idiots, many have been extremely clever professional people themselves. And just remember that a very large part of what you get from a professional survey is an insurance policy. If anything serious goes wrong later that I should have spotted then I would be liable for the losses you suffer.

As for the home condition survey, I have reservations about that and at the present time I am not intending getting involved. Except that I think it may lead to more building survey work and it may lead to some arbitration work.

 

[Penners]

John

I don't think anyone was denigrating the work of qualified surveyors - at least I hope not. Personally I have the greatest respect for your profession, even though I don't often put much money in the way of your brethren!

I think it's the new home inspectors who are causing a deal of scepticism. In particular I think the original poster wondered whether there was much point in a Home Condition Report, given that the majority of buyers of period properties would be likely to commission their own full structural survey from a "proper" surveyor, rather than trusting one done by an under-qualified person in the pay of the vendor.

David

 

[Ian Bond]

A qualified surveyor with in-depth knowledge of how old buildings are constructed, and need to be treated would be just the sort of person I'd be looking for during a house purchase.

Particularly if my house was being condemned based on modern standards and methods.

I'd imagine that I'd need someone like yourself, Johneds, in the circumstances you describe, i.e. sorting out disputed survey findings.

All the best

Ian

 

[Paul Hopper]

Johneds

I too belonged to the qualified world for many many years, as Penners might say, "until the battery went flat and the knee pads wore out" I think ours is a worthy profession and as long as we avoid being stubborn and try to force our views on others. I have always felt that the profession tended to dictate to the property field "because it could" and had a large axe. You say in your post that a survey from an RICS member is effectively an "insurance policy". agreed. but will there be any liability on HIPS?

I personally wonder where the liability will actually lie. At present we take the responsibility through our skills, experience, qualification and Professional Indemnity.

What of the HIP inspectors, if they are to use an online software system (fallible to say the least!) Where does liability lie?

To be frank. I have read nothing, seen nothing and heard nothing that enthuses me to the concept of HIP inspections and I fear maybe a rip off in the making, if you think about it the opportunities are there..
I say leave it as it is.. caveat emptor, choose your own surveyor and stop nannying the ordinary householder.It helps no one. I am sure Matt Green will be concerned at the opportunities that will reappear for the disreputable end of his field where he and his own kind work so hard to produce fair accurate and correct assessments in the Damp and Woodrot areas.

To be honest .. I can see an outstanding opportunity for the Insurance Companies to make a killing. Can you not see it fellow PPUK members as well as past associates in RICS

"Do not fear the dreaded HIP! insure with Direct Bulldog Insurance and buy (sell) with confidence!"

I await your comments. gentlemen, the floor (forum thread) is yours!

Paul Hopper

 

[pambrose]

Thanks for all your feedback. As someone pointed out, the reason for the question is that there is indeed some sceptism about the value of a Home Condition Report on a period property.

To clarify one point about liability. Absolutely there's liability to both the seller and the buyer, which is one of the issues that we have with the critics of these. If the inspector is on the hook to both, then surely who commissioned the work is not critical as the HI is always liable. It has to be objective and support both parties views - in our mind, its a very fine line for inspectors to tread.

We do believe that for many, a Home Inspection could be enough - as pointed out here, PP buyers are likely to have a good knowledge of the property/type/issues and hence a Home Inspection could prove sufficient.

Any thoughts?

Peter
=========================
The Home Information Pack Specialists
=========================

 

[Paul Hopper]

Pambrose

So the HI will be responsible will he/she

what for.

to what extent

to what value

with what proviso's and conditions

(cannot see under floor as there are carpets, a dog/cat/fleas etc.,)

How much extra will the HI pay for Indemnity Insurance?

We surveyors pay one hell of a lot as it is.. do you expect more?

if not, do you intend to train "inspectors" at a cost like British Waterways did with their Certificate of Compliance? Will you offer Indemnity Insurance? How much?, how much will you charge us to become one of your "Inspectors?"

answers would be nice....

Paul Hopper

 

[pambrose]

Pambrose
So the HI will be responsible will he/she
what for.
to what extent
to what value
with what proviso's and conditions
(cannot see under floor as there are carpets, a dog/cat/fleas etc.,)
How much extra will the HI pay for Indemnity Insurance?
We surveyors pay one hell of a lot as it is.. do you expect more?
if not, do you intend to train "inspectors" at a cost like British Waterways did with their Certificate of Compliance? Will you offer Indemnity Insurance? How much?, how much will you charge us to become one of your "Inspectors?"
Paul Hopper

Home Inspectors will need to carry sufficient PI to cover negligence claims - the requirement is exactly the same as today for Chartered Surveyors, albeit with higher risk because more people can take action. Typically we hear figures of £5m indemnity cover from the panels.

In terms of what they can and can't do - can't lift carpets etc - it really is a snapshot of the current property.

In terms of costs - difficult to say at the moment but what we can say is that new entrants will be paying quite a lot - as you would expect; new industry, unproven, lack of track record etc etc. What we can say for certain is that they WILL be insurable - Lloyds of London have confirmed this. Of course, a few mistakes in their first year or work could be very challenging for insurability in future years ...

In terms of becoming an inspector - that's not up to us, but the training and acceditation centres - they set the pricing, we don't. However, typically for Chartered Surveyors, we are hearing <£2000 for "Fast Track" training, from people like SafeAs (RICS) and SAVA.

For more details on how we are working with inspectors, please contact us directly on the website.