Would you bother with a full survey on a house built in 2002?

[MamaToABeautifulBoy]

We’re in the process of buying a detached house built in 2002 and are trying to decide whether to commission a full building survey.

The property appears to be in excellent condition, both inside and out. It’s clearly been very well maintained, and there are no obvious signs of structural problems, damp or anything else concerning.

We’re conscious that appearances aren’t everything, but we’re also wondering whether spending a considerable amount on a comprehensive survey is really necessary for a relatively modern house.

Our mortgage lender will, of course, carry out its own valuation, although I appreciate this isn’t the same as a survey.

We’re not necessarily looking to cut corners, but equally don’t want to spend money unnecessarily. We’re considering whether a Level 2 survey might be sufficient, or whether we should go for a Level 3.

Has anyone bought a similarly aged property and decided against a full survey?

Did you regret it, or did you feel it was money well saved?

I’d be particularly interested to hear from anyone who has had a survey on a modern house that appeared immaculate but uncovered something significant.

Thank you..

Yes, I would. Old properties have their maintenance issues, but modern houses aren’t built as solidly as old properties and can have their own problems. They have lower materials durability, roofs with shorter lifespans, and some have poor insulation and thermal bridging.

It’s still a 25 year old house give or take so can develop issues over time.

My friend was going to purchase a house built in 2004 and the survey came back as serious subsidence.
it’s whether you want to take that risk.
Could be costly if there are serious issues.

We didn't get a full survey for a house which was 30 years old when we bought it. One thing which swayed our decision was that it hadn't been significantly altered (no extension/loft conversion etc.; we'd previously rented a house where the extension was clearly separating from the rest of the house....) - you haven't mentioned if any substantial work has been done on it. We haven't had any significant surprises (except that the boiler was, in fact, working, and still does, so that was a win).

yes, to make sure no subsidence or any work that hasn’t passed building regs. Just because having to pay to replace say what was an authorised lean to that was later turned into a kitchen extension or a loft conversion that may be causing the building to bow as the roof supports were cut to make a new room but wasn’t properly finished to make the room liveable and the roof safe.

25 years is quite a long time

It depends on the house. We’ve bought 3 and never had a survey on any.
If they had been a different type of house we may have.

If you are confident in it then I wouldn’t either, save the funds fr something else.

if you do go for it a level 2 won’t tell you anything useful. A level 3 only a little more. You may be better using a specialist survey for any aspect you want to check rather than a general one that will simply say “inspected recommend a specialist survey”

Level 3, definitely.

Its not expensive when its giving you important information, be that good or bad, about something second hand you are purchasing for 100's of thousands of borrowed money.

Your new house which is 25 years old? I would get a survey

Unless you are very knowledgeable and well informed on structural/buildings/subsidence, i would definitely getca full survey.

Yes, 25 years is a long time. We considered not having one on a 2019 house and were heavily advised against that choice by our solicitor and estate agent. It ended up not showing anything relevant anyway so we were a bit miffed we bothered, but a 25 year house is much more likely to show something.

Always.

Why don't you have the level 2 survey - Homebuyer Report?
It's the medium option and points out any faults.

I've never had a full structural survey and I've bought a dozen houses, some over 200 years old.