What level of survey would you get for a relatively new house?

[Bumblebeemee]

We had an offer accepted on a 4 year old property. It was a standalone build by a reputable independent builder rather than a developer in a larger scale estate. It appears to have been well maintained however the owner has passed away and their family do not live locally so aren’t able to provide detailed information.

The NHBC warranty has 5-6 years left however we would still like to have a survey done for peace of mind. Given that they’re generally thought to contain a lot of arse covering statements, what level of survey would you go for in these circumstances?

Highest level. Always. Mad not to. It was called a full structural survey when we bought

Full structural

Even new properties have serious issues on occasion.

Personally I wouldn't bother at all. However if you are keen to have a survey for peace of mind I'd avoid the lowest level survey because they really aren't going to check enough to provide that peace of mind. Full structural would be overkill in my opinion - assuming the property hasn't been extended or had walls knocked down etc in such a short amount of time. Loads of the things a full structural would spend time looking at simply won't be there to look at in such a modern house.

I’d go mid range - I haven’t found that full survey does anything more - they can’t see through walls or under floors so they cover themselves with ‘perhaps’ ‘may indicate’ ‘suggests’.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68020951.amp

Why you should always go for a full structural survey

That isn't a reason for a full structural at all. Those houses were identified as having a problem before anyone had moved in to them - and remediated. If the problem with the foundations had not been spotted by the time the houses were sold one of two things would happen when that house was 4 years old...
a/ Visible cracks appeared as house moved, in which case ANY surveyor will spot them and comment. In fact, any person would be able to spot them if they looked. And probably the owners of the properties would have already started complaining to the builders and trying to claim on guarantees.
b/ Nothing visible had occurred yet, in which case even a full structural surveyor would not be able to identify the issue.

There seems to be a misunderstanding that surveyors have some kind of magic capability to see bits of a property that other people can't. They can't look inside the buildings structure and see invisible things - they don't even move furniture or carpets. What they do is spend a LONG time in a property looking at everything that's visible really carefully. They WILL use damp meters (although the worth of that is much debated). They WILL use binoculars to look in detail at high areas etc. They WILL go up into lofts. They have the experience to interpret what they see in the context of the age, location etc of the property. And they will note the signs that something might be happening - ie: musty smell and movement in floorboards, they will probably suggest a damp survey and the joists might be rotten under the floor. A level 3 is really just where a surveyor takes longer to look in more detail and reports in a more granular fashion.

Thanks everyone, there’s only a £40 difference in cost between level 2 and level 3 so although 2 feels sufficient I think DH would prefer to just get 3 for any hidden issues. I was debating 1 but it doesn’t seem to offer much. My gut is that there won’t be anything, it wasn’t built as part of a big new development, it’s been done well, just feels too risky not to get one at all.