Buying a house without having a survey done?

[MirandaGoshawk]

I know this seems like a no-brainer ("Don't do it" screams at me) but DH insists that it will be a waste of £500. We had a Homebuyer survey done on our current house and it didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. We had already spotted the damp. Now we are selling, and the buyer's surveyor has been. He had a tick-box form and asked us lots of questions. He tested for damp and wrote down the bleedin' obvious, like when the house was built, made of brick, tiled roof etc.

DH would rather get a friend of ours, a builder, to look it over after we've moved in.

It is about 30 years old, and has been well looked after. There's no damp or evidence of subsidence (cracks). What else is there to look for? It's private sewage but the surveyor wouldn't look at that. Is the £500 a waste of money? I'm inclined to think that it is, but we'd have no-one to sue if things went wrong. But I don't know if I'd every sue anyone anyway.

Anyone any words of wisdom?

[WhatsGoingOnEh]

Why wouldn't you get your builder friend to look it over BEFORE you bought it? Not afterwards! Afterwards is pointless.

Are you getting a mortgage? The mortgage company will insist on a valuation survey, and that's about £250. Honestly, I'd spend another £500 topping that up to a full Homebuyers.

[WhatsGoingOnEh]

I spent £850 (!) getting a survey done on a house I wanted, and ended up not buying it because of that survey. I'm so glad I didn't.

It wasn't structural stuff; the surveyor listed things like a dangerous stair bannister, and that a large dog could be heard barking continuously from the next door house.

I didn't buy it, someone else did. Three months later it's back on the market.

[MirandaGoshawk]

No mortgage.

Dangerous stair bannisters can be fixed. Barking dog - not something I'd expect the surveyor to point out! But it's a good job he did.

Yes, I could ask the builder to go round first but I want him round after we've moved in to advise about changing some things. He has a good eye and to him, anything can be fixed. So seemed daft getting him round twice.

[MirandaGoshawk]

DH says the Homebuyer's survey points out 'significant' problems, in other words things we would notice ourselves. Our current house survey said 'some damp problems that may need rectifying' or similar, so not a lot of help really.

[RCheshire]

Am not a huge fan of homebuyers surveys and have gone for full building surveys. Regardless, get your friend round before as well as after!

[SolomanDaisy]

It's worth it because if it shows there are problems then you can renegotiate the price. We have had surveys point out loads of things we hadn't noticed - woodworm, wall ties, roof issues, load bearing walls removed, asbestos.

[WhatsGoingOnEh]

Is your DH a surveyor? He sounds rather disparaging of surveyors' expertise and, IME, a little over-confident of his own. :)

Yes you can fix stuff like stair banisters, but without a surveyor, you wouldn't know it was dangerous.

I really don't see the point in "saving" money by not paying to double-check that a MASSIVELY EXPENSIVE purchase like a house is worth it! To the very least, get your builder mate round twice. Surely his first visit can also be the consultation meeting you'll need afterwards?

If you're really that frugal, find something "wrong" with the house in the survey and get the sellers to knock off £500 from the asking price.

[WhatsGoingOnEh]

Plus, don't forget that if you sell the house in the future, potential buyers WILL get a survey done. You could be in for a nasty shock if they discover bad stuff (subsidence, concrete cancer, damp, rot) that dramatically lowers its value.

[WhatsGoingOnEh]

Also, you couldn't use the survey to sue in the future. But yes, you can definitely use it to renegotiate the price.

[mrscog]

We've just bought a house of a similar age without one. For us, we could see what needed doing - for instance a house of that age will soon need rewiring etc. and to be honest it was the only house that met our requirements in the area we wanted so we wanted it even if it was about to fall down.

Now we're in, I'm starting to see things which we need to work on - the shower has no pressure for instance, but we've got the £500 we saved on the survey to put towards that.

If we'd been buying in an area where there was more choice and more of a buyers market I might have considered it more, but we got 25K off the asking price as it was - if we hadn't snapped it up someone else would have!

[MirandaGoshawk]

Thanks Whatsgoing, some useful points. It occurred to me after I'd posted that you (we) wouldn't have known about the banisters.

Mrscoq - same here re the house - I've been looking for two years and it's location location for us. A building plot in the right area is nearly as much as this house in its lovely garden not that we'd have any money to build more than a hut

[cakewench]

Well I just read this question aloud to DH and he said "sure!" However, he might have followed it up with "it's not my money." and other similar comments.

I personally would not. £500 in the scheme of things isn't a huge amount. As someone has said, this is a huge purchase you're making. We didn't have a mortgage, either, and if I recall correctly, we paid more for a more thorough survey because we wanted to know everything.

[madamemuddle]

We ended up not buying a house because of the survey. It too was 30 to 40 years old and the surveyor said it wasn't worth what we were planning of paying because of structural problems.

The vendor wouldn't budge on the price and the bank wouldn't lend any more than the surveyor said it was worth. Throw in stamp duty and we couldn't afford it/didn't want to pay the extra and pulled out.

This is probably the biggest purchase of your life. You would be idiots not to have a proper survey.

[MirandaGoshawk]

Thank you.

Madea - it's not that we wouldn't be having a competent person look at it, but I suppose it's an experienced builder versus someone who will just tick boxes.

[mrscog]

Miranda, I think an experienced builder will actually give you more of an idea than a box ticker who will be worrying about covering their arse!

[LondonGirl83]

Definitely not. We have ended up not buying a house because of a survey. A good friend just pulled out of a house that was not more than 10 years old. The house looked fine but the surveyor detected structural movement. Seriously, 500GBP relative to the purchase price is nothing and unless you are very experienced with building materials / movement etc, it is a terrible risk you are taking.

[cakewench]

Same here, we paid for surveys on two houses which we ended up not buying.

'Box ticking' surveyors are there to tell you if something is wrong. If they miss something, you will (eventually) be able to reach a settlement with their insurance company. Going through your builder friend, you will at most get an 'oh sorry mate I missed that.'

I mean, it's your money obviously, and it sounds as if you're happy to go without a survey. So, decision made I guess. :)

[MirandaGoshawk]

No, I am struggling with this and am inclined to spend the money & have the report. It's DH. He phoned MIL fount of all knowledge who said it's normal in France to buy a house without doing a survey. Then, based on his experience with our buyer's surveyor... Admittedly theirs was only a valuation but the guy did nothing you or I wouldn't do, according to DH>

[SolomanDaisy]

A valuation survey is a very cheap and quick look for the mortgage company. You would be getting a lot more for your money.

[Fairylea]

Please don't go ahead without a detailed survey. We purchased our house in 2010 and went for the basic survey. It looked perfect, no issues, built in late 1950s so ex council and they are usually very solid.

Well.... Last year we noticed terrible condensation and water in our upstairs lights. We had several building inspectors and different experts round and all concurred that the roof needed retailing as the mortar had gone and the type of felt they'd used to line it had a shelf life and that was up. Our insurance wouldn't cover it as they said it was "wear and tear".

So... remortgage for £7k later..... We are broke.

Just be very, very careful.

We are still having problems with the house now. I wish, wish we hadn't bought it.

[Panicmode1]

I wouldn't, and I'm a surveyor (albeit a general practice one and not a structural one....). The obvious things like damp can be spotted fairly easily - it's the less easy to spot (and very expensive things to rectify) that you need them to do their 'tick box' stuff on.......

[MirandaGoshawk]

Panic... what sort of things? Would he/she check the electrics or sewage tank for example?

But anyway, thank you all. You've convinced me. I've told DH that I want one.

The builder would come round after anyway because we wouldn't be there if he came before, and in any case it's very hard to discuss ripping out their horrible fireplace etc with the owners there.

[Panicmode1]

If you have a full structural then they should look at the electrics but they wouldn't test the circuits and will then always qualify that with "we recommend you get an electrician" but they will check that they meet regs etc. Our survey did look at the drainage (in scant detail) Not sure about septic tanks - check with the surveyor beforehand - they can be horrifically expensive if they go wrong. We discovered an issue with the flue (it was incomplete - I hadn't noticed) and an issue with a (different!) chimney breast which had been removed. The surveyor will also be up to date on current building/fire regs etc and advise on anything which may be an issue and which may cause you to have problems on selling....

You may well end up getting the cost of the survey back by renegotiating the price over things you hadn't noticed....

[ajandjjmum]

I personally would get the builder and the survey - more possibility of any problems being spotted with two sets of eyes.

[LondonGirl83]

Surveyor will notice signs of woodworm, a roof near the end of its life, movement in the structure that might not be obvious to a layman, building materials that have a short shelf-life / that are not mortgagable. For instance, if the sturcture is mundic in future you'll only be able to sell to cash buyers as banks won't touch it. This severely limits value and might be why you are getting it so cheaply.

A surveyor can spot brickwork that needs repointing to prevent future issues, ventillation bricks that have been covered up, patios laid above the DPC etc. All of these things would be storing up future damp and rot issues even if nothing is evident today.

The number of things that can be storing up future trouble for a house is near endless and unless you are in the trade you are unlikely to be familiar with them.

Don't make such a huge decision with a survey! It might be fine but it could equally be a disaster...