First Time Buyer: To Survey or not to Survey...

[Vini]

As you may have gathered from an earlier post, we've been looking at houses.

We made an offer on the house we loved and had it accepted, we've started the ball rolling now with a mortgage via HSBC (Tracker @ 4.49%, no penalties yadda yadda).

I've only two things playing on my mind and I don't think they're that 'big an issue', so hit me up with some advice;

1. Survey.

HSBC want £155 for Standard Valuation; this is a requirement and has to be paid - fine, no problem!
But then, they also offer two forms of survey both include the standard valuation and;

£355 - basic survey. This was described to me on the phone as being carried out by the same guy who values the house (ie. a non specific surveyor), he will effectively kick the tyres. I was also told that this would be an exterior survey, visually checking the basics... The basics presumably being; Roof, Damp Course, Subsidence?

£550 'more detailed' survey. This is done by an actual surveyor and in more depth. Although, when it was described it didn't sound that much more in depth; actual surveyor, interior and exterior checks. Sticking his head in the loft to check loft space.

Now I'm pretty well connected and know builders/plumbers/sparkys/gas men, so had been thinking about sacking the survey off and just getting 'the boys' round to check the basics that would probably be covered under a basic survey.

But also, every know and then I think sod it, £350/550 in the scheme of things isn't much. But when I get this feeling I look back over the email a mortgage advisor sent which said;

"If it's an older house (60+ years) then consider a full survey; If it's newer, perhaps just look at a basic"

Another thing I was told was that when our advisor had their survey carried out, it flagged up all sorts. Yet, 10 years down the line no work has been carried out to remedy any of the issues flagged...

When the basic survey was described to me, I just didn't fancy it at all. The fact that the valuer is doing it puts me off a lot. I'd rather split £300 between my mates.


2. Drain

There is what appears to be an outside drain on the land, which I presume is/was the main termination point for the cul de sac at one point. This worries me a tiny little bit, and I want to know at what point this might be raised as an issue.

Would a surveyor flag it, or would the solicitors flag it?

If the solicitors would pick this up in their search, then I'm pretty certain we'll forgo a survey.



So, What would you do? The house is a 3 bed semi and about 30 years old.

[Barrichello]

When you consider the amount of money being paid for the property, a detailed inspection/survey is a no brainer to me.

Also i would take exception with....

If it's an older house (60+ years) then consider a full survey; If it's newer, perhaps just look at a basic

The amount of trouble i have seen/heard about with houses built in the last 10-15 years i would be very wary as well. Some of the workmanship and basic defects are shocking.

[scaryjim]

If it's 30 years old any more than a basic valuation will be wasted money, tbh. You certainly won't need a full structural, and as you suspect the basic survey is pretty much worthless - anything they'd pick up you should have already seen for yourself on viewing the property.

Also remember that if you get a survey done the surveyor will feel duty bound to flag up something, to justify their fee. Anything like risk of subsidence / flooding / potential developments / road building / etc that may affect the property will come up in the local searches your solicitor will carry out as part of the conveyancing.

So, yeah, stick with the basic valuation and you shouldn't go far wrong.

[TheAnimus]

we had a fully survey, hey didn't check the airing cabinet because, and I quote "the cabinet was obstructed by water cylinder and plumbing"

[Agent]

Having just had this done myself - Basic/Full. It's about £150/£300 difference on a property worth how many tens (hundreds?) of thousands? It's just a no brainier.

When I was buying mine there were 3 levels of survey. Everyone I spoke to suggested the middle one, with the highest being used for very old properties / ones that you know have issues.

Not having a survey is silly. There could be the smallest thing that you can't see that makes the property significantly devalued. You can hide damp very well, but the proper detectors that are placed against the walls will still pick it up.

Please - get one done!

[badass]

Not having a survey is silly. There could be the smallest thing that you can't see that makes the property significantly devalued.

Guess what happens then.

You have a fight with the bank and they pay you the difference!
Or you have a fight with them, they refuse, you take them to court and get your house for free*. Of course you then have to fix the house out of your own pocket.

The main reason to go for a more detailed survey is that you might be able to knock the price down some more.

*This actually happened to a friend of the family around 15 years ago. I believe it was something to do with the consumer credit act.

[GoNz0]

go for the full survey, if something crops up that the guy missed his insurance pays out not yours !

if something does crop up you tell the owners to get it fixed or money off.

we had some suspect cracks, it turned out it was just the house settling over its 90 year life. we fitted rebars with the correct glue into the mortor line and have not had a hairline crack show up in the 2 years we have been here.

[Vini]

Ok, so... say we had a survey done (basic/"full") - I'm guessing it's like an MOT and valid for the day it passes?

[GoNz0]

not just the day, should they miss something major that been there all along like major dry rot then you can claim from them.

[Rave]

I'm sure you don't need to get a surveyor through the bank? Try shopping around, TBH. Even if you still have to pay them the £155 for the valuation it's possible you could still save.

I wouldn't buy a house right now, but I've banged on about house prices for long enough that I'm sure everyone's fed up with me now, so I'll just point you to the link in my sig and say that IMO the dead cat bounce is finished.

But if I was buying, I'd get a comprehensive survey. If you're unlucky enough to suffer, say, subsidence, you could be £10k+ out of pocket. If it's a risk, you need to know about it....or you need the surveyor's insurance to pick up the tab if he fails to spot it.

[TheAnimus]

its also worth pointing out that rave has been banging on about this for so damn long now, that house prices have risen quite a lot, in my area alone I'd be at an opp loss of 30% or more

if we do have the alignment, that I agree we are due to some extent, the trick will be to look back and see what would have happened if you'd bought when a harbinger of doom told you not too. You might have gone up 30% then down 20% say, which is still quids in, and all those harbingers are worse off, even thou they will be running round saying how they told you so.

(sorry rave!)

[Bugbait]

For all the reasons stated above, get a full survey. The extra cost is a drop in the bucket compared to everything else associated with buying. Wait until you start furnishing…

its also worth pointing out that rave has been banging on about this for so damn long now, that house prices have risen quite a lot, in my area alone I'd be at an opp loss of 30% or more

Agreed, property tends to have an upward trend over time. Friends in our area with a garden flat were offered £575k (based on a valuation of £585k) a fortnight ago for a place they bought 4 years ago for £425k (note, this was during a perceived market high at the time as well). This is “down” from a valuation of £650k-675k at the peak of the property market madness a couple of years ago. They have no interest in selling at the moment though.

[Saracen]

As far a I'm concerned, the survey question is one of trading off protection and peace of mind against cost.

But being a cynic, my first point is that if I'm having a proper survey, I want my choice of surveyor, and it'll be someone belonging to RICS. Neither the mortgage lender nor the estate agent are organising it, any more than they're pickling my solicitor for me. And for that matter, the mortgage will be independent of the estate agent.

As for which one to have, for me, it's done to the nature of the property. For older properties, and certainly for anything listed, it'd be a full survey. If I'm planning extensive works, or if extensive works have already been done, I'd want a full survey. At least you stand a fighting chance of picking up major problems before they're your concern, and you can then either negotiate on the asking price, or simply walk away, if anything too major is found.

Also, if there were anything that set my problem antennae twitching, like subsidience, or rot, etc, then I'd want it thoroughly investigated.

A friend of mine bought a house some years ago, that suffered subsidence. There was a ruddy great hole in the garden. It was obvious, and pretty large. The result was that the place was a nightmare to sell, because most people took one look, and baked off in a hurry. My mate, however, shrewd as he is, had a survey done. He then approached insurers armed with the survey, and got guaranteed insurance at decent rates for several years. He then negotiated a £440,000 house down to (IIRC) about £290,000.

The survey showed the subsidence to not be a problem, and to cost a couple of thousand to remedy. So it cost him about £1000 for the survey, £2k or £3k to fix the problem, a few hundred on extra insurance premiums and saved him about £150k off the house price.

The main benefit of the full survey is that it is far more detailed, and therefore much more likely to pick up major, and therefore expensive, problems, if they exist. If you're going to face £30k for a new roof, it's good to know it before you buy. If there are major damp or rot problems, or if work has been done that isn't up to scratch, or may even be dangerous, it's good to know. And for old properties, that dangerous work may be 50 or 100 years ago.

And as has been said, if problems show up in a survey, you use that to negotiate on price, and if they don't, you've bought yourself quite a bit of peace of mind.

As I said, on an old, or listed, or "suspect" property, I'd have a full survey. On most, though, the medium "report" may be enough. But either way, personally, I'd want it done by someone I commissioned, not via the mortgage lender.

[Domestic_Ginger]

Get a gas engineer to do a boiler service; £50 for some to save a few thousand. We have had to pay at least a grand to get some of ours sorted (boiler replacement); The hole system is still a bit iffy.

[Vini]

Get a gas engineer to do a boiler service; £50 for some to save a few thousand. We have had to pay at least a grand to get some of ours sorted (boiler replacement); The hole system is still a bit iffy.

The boiler is 4 years old and under service contract with British Gas... like you say It doesn't hurt to get things like that checked.

I have a plumber, gas man, builder and plasterer going to view the place with me tomorrow.

[AledJ]

2. Drain

There is what appears to be an outside drain on the land, which I presume is/was the main termination point for the cul de sac at one point. This worries me a tiny little bit, and I want to know at what point this might be raised as an issue.

Would a surveyor flag it, or would the solicitors flag it?

If the solicitors would pick this up in their search, then I'm pretty certain we'll forgo a survey.



So, What would you do? The house is a 3 bed semi and about 30 years old.

I'm not a solicitor yet ( waiting on the economy for a training contract). But I can say this, the solicitor dealing with your purchase will make the appropriate searches. It may be that a water company has an easement over land (this just means they have a right over your land in regards to the drain- note they would inform you). Your solicitor should be able to determine what rights exits, when they do the pre-contract searches.