Reply With QuoteI have no experience in these things, but the cynic in me thinks that this is probably a arse covering exercise that the surveyor would say regardless of the actual inspection.
We are looking to buy a 1930's house and the homebuyer survey has pointed out that as a 1930's building with a cavity wall, the wall ties may well be at the end of their life. There are currently no visible signs of failure (eg horizontal cracks in the walls or walls bulging) but I am a little concerned about this (all the other houses we have lived in have been built much more recently).
I have read that they can be replaced and sometimes the old ones need removing. I have also read that no external signs doesn't necessarily mean there is no problem and a specialist inspection is necessary using an endoscopic inspection camera or even cutting out an old tie.
I must say this is an unwelcome aspect of buying an older home. Has anyone had experience of replacing wall ties (either as homeowner or contractor)? Your thoughts and suggestions welcom.
TIA
Jon
I have no experience in these things, but the cynic in me thinks that this is probably a arse covering exercise that the surveyor would say regardless of the actual inspection.
Cheers..
Jase
Sounds like a precautionary measure to cover their backs, if no evidence of cracking on load bearing wall joints then all should be okay.
With old houses there is normally lots of other unseen issues but in general they are built better, have bigger gardens, bigger rooms and better parking.
All of the above, we've bought more than our fair share of old houses, if the tiles look okay and the style / designs are suitable in an updated setting ie won't look out of place, then leave them be.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Nothing to worry about, they always say that to cover themselves.
It’s very rare that they actually need replacing but it’s worth getting a quote anyway.
The only other thought I can add is if there has been a lot of water ingress !
Any past history of cracks on extrnal walls, look for different coloured pointing, I think it's a arse covering from the surveyor, ties were a bit thicker in the old days , they are stainless steel and thinner now days.
Trying to get a contractor /builder to do this job would be a nightmare it's a absolute pain in the arse labour intensive job
My daughter had this highlighted on her recient house purchase- during our renovation I made several holes in a few of the external walls repairing brick work
All of the ties I encountered were in good condition.
The issue generally comes down to the quality of the galvanising of the ties.
Modern ties are stainless, so don't corrode in real terms, whereas 1930's wall ties were generally galvanised mild steel and the quality of the galv was very variable, but often rather poor. There are so many variables to say whether this is an issue on your case without a targeted intrusive investigation, but they are right to draw it to your attention so you can make an informed decision about the inherent risk.
If it were me, I would call the surveyor and ask them if it was a general note they included due to the age of the property of if there were actual signs that there is a problem. I suspect it was a general note, but it is worth checking.
Installation of remedial ties are easy to install nowadays, removal of corroding ties is more invasive.
Some of these had failed on the Victorian house I bought. Fortunately as the area (Bournemouth) was full of these houses there were builders who specialised in this. They looked down the cavity from the loft and also drilled a few holes to admit a boroscope to assess them fully. They were replaced with new screw in ones and all the holes sealed up afterwards. If there is any doubt it is worth checking as the used to use mild steel and I think it took a few hundred replacements - was done by the owner as a condition prior to completion.
There is an aftermarket screw in wall tie system, Jon, but will mean lots of holes and i've no idea of cost.
In depth survey and take it from there i'd say, as it may also be a standard undernote give the age of the building.
Last edited by EchoSevenNine; 19th September 2019 at 14:14.
That is a very misleading statement.Originally Posted by Dave+63
The other way of looking at it is: The surveyor if highlighting a well known and well documented potential problem with that age of building so that the purchaser can make an informed choice with that information. Also known as his 'professional duty to warn' which is part of their professional obligations.
Which of the following would you rather receive having paid good money for the report to be carried out:
1. Advisory information provided by your surveyor which you can chose to either act on, or ignore.
2. A report which just says either nothing at all or 'it'll probably be fine mate'.
?
I know which I would rather have.
I think a surveyor's report should be a report on the building in question, not general advice on properties of that era or ilk. The latter (common) information could of course be provided elsewhere but would make their reports substantially shorter and appear to offer less value for money.
My son had this "advice" when he bought his 1930's detached house.
The surveyor couldn't have checked so I would think it is an advisory they add to most surveys on 1930's houses.
Cheers,
Neil.
I’ve bought and sold a number of 1930’s properties over the years and always been advised that the ties need replacing.
I’ve never had any replaced and having now been in my current house for twelve years, can see no evidence of them needing to be replaced.
I had an extension built a few years ago and removed half of the back wall of the house. The ties that came out showed no signs of corrosion.
Should a proper survey be carried out and it be found that the ties do actually need replacing (or at least some of them), then that’s fine. What I disagree with is the surveyor saying that it needs to be done solely due to the age of the house.
I stand by my assertion that, generally, they say it to cover themselves and thus put the fear of God into the potential buyer of the property.
So as long as the cracks had all been patched up and the whole house redecorated prior to the surveyors arrival, he should therefore give it a clean bill of health as there was nothing to see?
The surveyor has visited a 1930's house with a cavity wall, which are well known for having this common defect. In my eyes he would be professionally negligent not to have at least highlighted it as a risk, which is what it sounds like he has done.
In what way do you think that it is not relevant to the property in question?
Ultimately you are paying the surveyor to advise on what is wrong with the property as well as provide advice on what 'may' be wrong with the property in areas he cannot inspect or be sure. What it is NOT doing is just covering their backside.
Covering their backside would be warning that corroding walls ties may be present when the walls are solid brickwork and do not contain any ties at all, a trait which many surveyors are guilty of and leads to confusion and further problems.
The OP did not say that the surveyor reported that the ties need to be replaced, he said that the wall ties 'may well be at the end of their life'.
The property is around 90 years old and the life expectancy of galvanised steel is generally accepted to be around 50 years (to first maintenance), it could be more, but it could be less dependent upon the thickness and quality of the galv coating. No one knows until they inspect them, but the surveyor still has a duty to warn of the risk.
You have been lucky and have never had a problem, but thousands of people HAVE had problems with corroding wall ties, so I wonder how they would feel if they had just bought the house and not been warned it may be a problem.
No surveyor writes their reports with the intention of putting 'the fear of god' into the reader. These type of reports are commissioned to warn of potential problems with the property, but it then seems to shock the readers when they report that their may be a problem - which is the whole point of the report.
My apologies, I’d misread that bit. You are absolutely right.
Thanks all for your insights.
I think the surveyor was drawing attention to a generally understood potential problem that I was unaware of - so that was helpful. I am very risk averse so his comment that there was no visible signs is reassuring - particularly as there several people here who have owned similar age properties and not experienced problems.
He hasn't made a specific suggestion to get a tie survey/inspection carried out so I think I will leave it. At least it can be addressed if anything arises in the future.
Many thanks
Jon
Absolutely no need to apologise!
What you have just interpreted from the OP's original text is very similar to what most people do when they read reports and that is why they often scare people half to death.
I am not a surveyor, but do produce specialist reports on building defects for a living and this is one of the very frustrating issues with commonly written building terminology when dealing with people who are unfamiliar with the language. I usually follow up issuing the report with an informal conversation to explain what the written text 'actually' means.
I see an awful lot of very poorly written reports too, which ARE written with the sole purpose of covering their backsides and attracting no liability whatsoever for the author, so I do absolutely 100% know exactly where you are coming from. All I would say is that most of these are where people have only paid peanuts for the report and then are surprised when all it does is recommend yet more 'specialist' reports and investigations, as the original fee is simply not adequate for the surveyor to do a proper job, or take responsibility for anything - which is very devious and deceptive IMHO and reflects badly on the more 'genuine' reports.
These are litigious times we live in nowadays and unfortunately that has increased the need to be 'thorough' when reporting, in case you have missed something. The downside is the reader can no longer see the wood for the trees when reading the 'OTT waffle' we have to include nowadays.
Posting Permissions