Quick bit of background.
I bought a house a couple of years back and had a full structural survey done for £750.
I expected it to show me everything that was materially wrong with the property.
As it turned out, it was fine as it gave me reassurance about the major things, but it didn't spot some of the things I thought it would.
For example, a plug socket was too close to a sink. I have since remedied this as it was a small thing. But it got me wondering.
My question is that were I to put the house on the market, and a subsequent full structural were to find things which the previous did not, where do I stand as a seller? Presumably there is some statute of limitations.
I expect that in common with any time you try to go after someone like this (surveyor, solicitor etc) for failing to do their job, it'll depend if the gain is worth the time and expense of taking someone like that to court. For small items like that it's very unlikely to be worth it, for subsidence or something major, then yes.
I suspect it would all depend on the nature, extent and severity of the issue found and the time elapsed between surveys.
Obviously there might well be changes in regulation to consider.
I’d suggest a very pragmatic approach to such an event, unless it’s clear cut and supported by other professional opinions.
As time will have passed between your survey and any subsequent one it's entirely possible that 'things' could be found, also regulations tend to evolve over time...I wouldn't sweat it...IF a buyer's willing to spend on the full structural generally it is a buying signal...IF something does come up as others have said take a pragmatic approach.Originally Posted by AlphaOmega
Someone with legal qualifications will no doubt confirm, but as I understand it, under both Contract and Tort Law the Statute of Limitations generally allows six years to claim for professional negligence.
The ‘clock’ for that six years under each type of claim starts running at different times e.g. from date of breach of duty or awareness of a financial loss.
In practice, it’s often not as clear-cut as that, as it may be extended by the Courts if warranted e.g. if the loss does not actually become apparent or realised for some time afterwards.
What financial loss have you suffered to date, or is that likely to only become a serious concern if/when you come to sell the house, whenever that is?
Does the survey contract contain a limitation re liability in favour of the surveyor?
I know that there may be other areas of concern besides the plug position, but is that an appropriate area of consideration for a Structural Survey? I have no idea.
There are varying levels of home survey but they all seem to contain caveats and restrictions about what they will show, and how far they will go to fulfil the contract. No professional advisor can absolutely guarantee their services to a faultless level of performance (or at least, they shouldn’t undertake to, if they’re wise).
In any case, to bring a successful action you would need to show either a breach of contract or professional negligence.
Reference to the survey contract terms & conditions will be key.
Negligence would rely upon proving a failure by the surveyor to exercise such reasonable skill & care as would be expected of a member of their profession. They may have missed something but still not necessarily have been negligent in law. I suppose that at time of sale listing an identical level / extent of survey by another surveyor on a home in broadly the same condition as before might assist with informing whether further action may be warranted, but there’s a lot of variables and it wouldn’t be an easy or cheap road to travel.
Perhaps legal expenses cover might assist, if held as part of your Home Insurance, but only if on balance the action is adjudged likely to succeed before embarking, which is another hurdle to clear.
I agree with the other posters that in the absence of a clear, current loss or serious concern, this is something that it’s probably best to take a pragmatic, realistic viewpoint on and not worry about.
Thanks Scepticalist, CM, Passenger and Stringer.
Sounds like an aligned view - appreciate it. Pragmatism is the order of the day.
Stringer, thanks for the detail I shall delve a little deeper and dig out the survey.
A full structural survey is a survey of the building structure, so would not cover the electrical wiring, plug sockets, decorations, guttering etc as these are not structural items. Unfortunately the term has become associated with the 'top level survey' and is therefore assumed to include everything about the property, which is not the case.
A full and detailed building survey carried out by a general practice qualified building surveyor is very much more likely to include these elements, but some items may still only be noted in a cursory way as the extent of the survey may be limited to the items contained 'within their professional expertise', so as an example they may note the plug socket but may then also recommend a qualified electrician advises on that item as the electrician is better qualified to advise on the very latest electrical regulations.
A private individual going against an insurer, either the solicitor or surveyors Professional Indemnity Insurer will need either deep pockets, Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance or Litigation Funding. If the damages are below £100,000, Litigation Funding won't work as there won't be enough money to pay the funder and leave the punter with anything meaningful.
Access to Justice in this country is very, very wrong.
Ah.
Thanks for the correction, yes I meant a full building survey.
Thanks Buff. Good to know and looks like I shall be keeping my head below the parapet (wall) then.
Cool, feel free to PM if you do move forwards though.
I got the most extensive survey I could on my current house.
I've had problems that I believe should have been noticed in the survey but didn't manifest themselves until later. 8 years down the line I'm having to spend ~£20k to solve issues that were obvious to any trained person.
Wobbly window frames, patio doors not sealed at all, damp, water ingress, improper drainage, damp coursing under the ground level, and the garden drainage supplied by 2 pumps in the garden as it was built too low to join to the mains (that wasn't even mentioned by anyone).
The exclusion list in the survey contract meant that there was no come back. Unless I was buying a house where I thought there was specific problem areas I wouldn't bother again.
It’s shocking. How can they be allowed to get away with charging for a service and then disclaiming liability.
I had a similar situation where I engaged a structural engineer to look at something. I wanted his professional opinion. He basically said well it could be this or it could be that. It wasn’t a complex matter (according to a chartered surveyor friend) but he wouldn’t give me a “balance of probabilities” or, it could be x, y or z and in my opinion it’s z. £500 for half an hour inspection and a few paragraphs of a “report”.
If you go to the doctor, you don’t expect them to not reach a conclusion!
But they very often don't.
I've always thought building surveys are deliberately non-committal and vague exactly so there can be no come-back:
"There may or may not be some problem or other with the roof. It was impossible to say as we had no access to the roof."
Best thing to do is employ a trusted local builder to give it a once over.
If you ever find one of those, let me know!
There are good and bad versions of everything in life. That applies to surveyors, structural engineers and builders too.
If I were needing some advice on potential property defects as part of a property purchase, the one person on the above list I would NEVER trust to provide reliable, professional and credible reporting advice however is a builder.
I have seen some shocking reports by surveyors and engineers in the past, but I have also seen some very good ones. I have seen many examples where they have saved the clients many thousands of £'s by finding defects which they were previously unaware of, but these reports are generally not be at the cheaper end of the market.
It never ceases to amaze me that so many people would happily proceed with what is often the largest financial commitment they will ever make in their entire lives without paying a few £'s for some decent professional advice. And by that I do mean DECENT advice, not the first name out of the yellow pages, or the bloke recommended by the mortgage broker who gets paid a back-hander for recommending their services.
Surveyors are often working in occupied properties while being followed around by the distrusting owner, who regularly lies to them and hides/deliberately covers-up any known defects, they often also have a very tight timeframe to get everything done as the 'owner has to be elsewhere within an hour', so they not allowed to move furniture, lift floorboards, or carpets, or trinkets on windowcills, or remove belongings from cupboards, etc etc. Even if they ask questions of the owner, the answer will often be a lie.
Use someone who is recommended by a trusted friend of colleague and try to be realistic with what they can achieve. Keep in mind that they should be raising 'the most salient points', so are unlikely to list absolutely every single defect as that is just not possible or realistic without providing a 'scattergun' report saying everything may be defective - which is an approach used by some to cover all bases and attract no liability.
My BIL is a building surveyor and must keep all records for 6 years. Which would indicate that this is the time limit for any claims.
Simple contracts signed 'by hand' are generally 6 years, whereas contracts signed 'by deed' (under seal) tend to be 12 years.
Therefore most contracts are simple contracts with 6 years liability unless specifically signed under seal.
I’ve seen a full structural survey done in what felt like 10 mins
I take my builder to any house I’m looking to buy…. Far more reassuring!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
