Surveyors failed to spot that our roof was knackered, can I pursue them?

[Jellytussle]

We moved just over a year ago into a house that needed a lot of work. We knew that that was the case and expected to have to do some fairly major jobs. What we didn't expect was to have to replace the entire roof. But when we had a big storm in the summer, water poured into our newly redecorated bedroom and ruined the place. We got several roofing companies in and they all agreed it needed replacing entirely, which was not cheap.

When we we buying the house, we got a Homebuyer Survey, which is the middle level of the three types of survey you can get. It didn't flag up any major concerns about the roof. However, I've since discovered that a previous buyer pulled out of buying this house after their mortgage valuation stated that the roof needed completely replacing. To my mind that suggests that our surveyor was either negligent or incompetent. A Homebuyer Survey is supposed to be much more comprehensive than a mortgage valuation, but he failed to spot that the roof was buggered.

I feel like I want to go back to our surveyors and demand compensation, or at least a refund of the survey cost, but not really sure how to go about this as I'm sure there is tons of small print they can quote at us. Have any MNers ever done this? What would you advise?

I don't blame you for feeling like that; totally understandable in your circumstances. First step is to dig out the paperwork: what were the Ts and Cs you signed up or agreed to?

Check your paperwork, what does it say. What was the report supposed to cover. Can you contact the solicitors you used? Assume you've told your mortgage company, did they say anything? If you didn't get a copy of the survey report, the mortgage company will have this on file.

Unlikely. The report was written over a year ago and the damage was spotted after a storm. Sorry. Surveyors reports are usually only valid for three months.

We paid for the homebuyers survey too, survey stated property had no damp issues. 12 months later it was clear house was riddled with damp that had just been painted over to sell the property. When we checked the survey, the surveyor had only taken one damp reading on an internal wall, that was it for the whole property.

When we attempted to complain, the surveyors completely closed ranks and refused to admit any liability, one damp Reading was sufficient etc etc etc. We attempted to use our home insurance legal cover to pursue a claim against the surveyor, but it all fizzled out as they kept saying we had only paid for homebuyers, not full survey and they fulfilled their minimum requirements.

In summary, yes you can pursue a claim, but they will use every excuse imaginable for why they are not liable.

We had a similar problem and are still paying back the £5k we had to borrow along with our remortgage in order to replace our roof and repair other areas inside. We contacted cab for advice and a solicitor and were told we had no come back as the surveyor would say it was just down to storm damage etc and insurance wouldn't cover it as they said it was wear and tear! So we are well and truly fucked. Sorry.

Thanks, yes we do have the survey (and the other report, which the non-buyer very kindly sent us). It has the usual RICS disclaimers at the end. I haven't contacted our building society, I guess that might be worth a shout. Like you Fairylea our insurers paid for the water damage internally but said the roof itself wasn't covered -- it hadn't been damaged by the storm but was poorly maintained by previous owners.

I'm guessing we'd have had some comeback if it had been a full structural survey, but the Homebuyer's Report doesn't seem to be worth the paper it's written on. If we ever buy another house I don't think I'll bother.

worth a try, but I've also found that RICS close ranks and complaining against a surveyor gets you nowhere. The only real use for a survey IMHO is to give you a guarantee against subsidence, which is the expensive one; if you have a survey and it doesn't show, then it happens, the insurers should (I hope) pay out.

otherwise...not impressed.

You can try but I urge caution.
My parents ended up in a protracted battle with the surveyors on their house that failed to see major subsidence. My parents actually won but it still cost them a huge amount of money and the surveyors (a huge national name) fought them for everything it was a horrible experience that took years of their life and they only won because someone at the surveyors end cocked up and accidentally forwarded an internal email which accepted liability. The surveyor's very expensive barrister managed to convince the judge that they shouldn't be liable for prosecution costs, nor for providing alternative accommodation despite my parents and siblings (who were children at the time) having a house that had the entire ground floor dug out to a depth of 10ft into the ground (it was a hard hat area) as it turned out the house (on a steep hill) had No foundations at all. The works cost the surveyor's insurers hundreds of thousands of pounds but still cost my parents £70k in legal costs and for alternative accommodation whilst the work was done. My parents didn't have a choice and their case was clear negligence but I've always been skeptical of surveys since. Not worth the paper they are written on, springs to mind.

blimey, so much for that idea, then!

shocking.

Part of the wriggle room for the surveyor here is that over a year passed without incidence (ie it didn't become obvious they day after you moved in). This is quite a long time after the original report.

The other bit of wriggle room is and this is the major one, that the roof issues came to light after a storm. Essentially there didn't seem to be an issue until you suffered storm damage.

The surveyor will simply claim that you suffered storm damage a year later and that he isn't liable. The fact that the storm damage uncovered larger issues with the roof will not be relevant because these issues only came to light because of the storm damage.

Essentially I think your surveyor can wriggle out of it entirely. Sorry.

Most homebuyers reports and condition surveys (which is what these are) don't cover you for this sort of thing.
They won't guarantee that you won't incur a major repair bill shortly after buying. They only tell you the condition of the house on the day of inspection and then only what is visible to the surveyor.
If your surveyor specifically stated he had access to the roof and was able to inspect roof beams trusses felt etc then you may have more of a claim. Most likely your report will state that the surveyor could only inspect the roof from the ground which pretty much absolves him of any liability because he didn't see or inspect all the roof elements.

Will your insurance pay for some of the storm damage??

Even with a full structural survey, you're slightly stuffed, because the caveats are all over it. I had a similar issue - roof was OK, the storms last winter did a lot of damage, and I had to have the whole of the back roof replaced. What made it worse was that the house is listed and in a conservation area. Very,very expensive.

We were kind of in the position of the people who pulled out of buying your house, we had a structural report done which mentioned the roof needs replacing, it sold a year later and 3 weeks after someone else moved in the roof caved in - our surveyor was of the opinion that there would be comeback for the new people because there was an official report in existence.

So worth taking professional advice.