Hi. We are looking to buy a new built house. it is nearly complete but needs flooring and minor things in our opinion. need to get a structural survey done and a snag list for negotiation. called a few places and quotes anywhere from 400 to 1200. the cheapest was actually an architect who was responsible for building this house at 300 eur. so should we go with him as he knows it well or will he be biased to give us an honest opinion?
structural survey and snag by the architect who built it - biased or not?
- Thread starter drunat
- Start date
drunat,
None of this should rest on your opinion.
You are a layperson and laypeople tend to fall into traps.
The worst trap is where they convince themselves that they want the item on sale.
The vendor and his agents only have to do the work of order takers - they don't have to "sell" the property!
Therefore, remember this - independence is crucial to obtaining the best advice.
Architects offer opinions on properties or may issue reports in the case of substantially complete ones.
You need the services of an independent architect whose job it is to report truthfully to you and act on your behalf.
The architect who "was responsible for building this house" already has a responsibility to his client, and therefore has a conflict of interest in advising you.
I want to clarify an apparent misunderstanding in your statement above which suggests that the architect was responsible for building the house.
The architect is usually not responsible for building the house.
The builder has the responsibility for building this house, unless the architect was also the builder - and that's almost unheard of. This means the house should be built by the builder in compliance with the building regulations and the planning permission.
The architect has the responsibility to design the house in compliance with the building regulations.
The architect may offer Opinions confirming the substantial compliance of the house with the building regulations and the relevant planning permission(s).
One of the Schedule A Assurances in such an Opinion should be signed by the Main Contractor (the Builder) confirming that he/his firm has built the building in compliance with the building regulations.
I would press to recieve an Opinion from the Vendor's architect along these lines and containing an assurance from the main contractor as described above for the works completed to date.
Structural Surveys means little or nothing by themselves - Part A of the building regulations is only one of twelve parts and the only one a structural engineer is competent to assess.
Therefore, I would engage an independent architect to assess the building and take his advice on whether other professionals, such as a structural engineer, are required.
If in doubt, just remember, you get what you pay for.
Obtain the best independent advise you can get.
I hope this clarifies things for you
ONQ.
[broken link removed]
All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
None of this should rest on your opinion.
You are a layperson and laypeople tend to fall into traps.
The worst trap is where they convince themselves that they want the item on sale.
The vendor and his agents only have to do the work of order takers - they don't have to "sell" the property!
Therefore, remember this - independence is crucial to obtaining the best advice.
Architects offer opinions on properties or may issue reports in the case of substantially complete ones.
You need the services of an independent architect whose job it is to report truthfully to you and act on your behalf.
The architect who "was responsible for building this house" already has a responsibility to his client, and therefore has a conflict of interest in advising you.
I want to clarify an apparent misunderstanding in your statement above which suggests that the architect was responsible for building the house.
The architect is usually not responsible for building the house.
The builder has the responsibility for building this house, unless the architect was also the builder - and that's almost unheard of. This means the house should be built by the builder in compliance with the building regulations and the planning permission.
The architect has the responsibility to design the house in compliance with the building regulations.
The architect may offer Opinions confirming the substantial compliance of the house with the building regulations and the relevant planning permission(s).
One of the Schedule A Assurances in such an Opinion should be signed by the Main Contractor (the Builder) confirming that he/his firm has built the building in compliance with the building regulations.
I would press to recieve an Opinion from the Vendor's architect along these lines and containing an assurance from the main contractor as described above for the works completed to date.
Structural Surveys means little or nothing by themselves - Part A of the building regulations is only one of twelve parts and the only one a structural engineer is competent to assess.
Therefore, I would engage an independent architect to assess the building and take his advice on whether other professionals, such as a structural engineer, are required.
If in doubt, just remember, you get what you pay for.
Obtain the best independent advise you can get.
I hope this clarifies things for you
ONQ.
[broken link removed]
All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
niceoneted
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,084
I would tend to steer clear of him as he may just be biased. It is better to go independent of anyone involved in the build.
Why not try some of these re the snag -
http://www.homesnag.ie/
http://www.snaglistireland.com/
http://www.snaglist.ie/
Have no experience of any but they may be good. I had a structural survey done on an old house and it only cost €200. You might be best to price the structural survey and snag list separately to see if its cheaper.
Hilarious I meant to put in my post that possible ONQ would give a great response and I see he posted at practically the same time.
Why not try some of these re the snag -
http://www.homesnag.ie/
http://www.snaglistireland.com/
http://www.snaglist.ie/
Have no experience of any but they may be good. I had a structural survey done on an old house and it only cost €200. You might be best to price the structural survey and snag list separately to see if its cheaper.
Hilarious I meant to put in my post that possible ONQ would give a great response and I see he posted at practically the same time.
Thanks for replies. Agree that it's probably better if we go for an independent guy. just to clarify the situation. The house was built privately, the architect was not the builder of course but he said he oversaw the whole thing. From talking to a few engineers it looks like the report that they would do would not actually include anything that requires thorough investigation such as they can't look inside the walls to check insulation. On the contrary this architect will be aware of all the details. There is no home bond guarantee or builders guarantee with the house - not sure why but am told by the architect that is because it was a private built. He said that he did sign off on the house and certified compliance with building regulations and planning permission. We have not seen any of the documents yet as the sale is not agreed yet. The house changed hands and is now sold by a different party than those who built it. The selling agent asked us to get the snag and survey done first so we are sure about our offer and won't change it later if any issues discovered. But do we really need structural survey since we will get that document from the original architect stating that building is structurally sound? Do we just need a snag list then? That architect did volunteer to do a snag for us. Basically we are a bit confused as to what we need to get done at this stage. Snag will help us in negotiation process but if we just do snag will we then have to hire another professional to do some other checks? just wanted to get it all done at the same time...
Ask whether Opinions will be offered and to have sight of the ones that will be offered.
Opinions of Compliance usually go with the title, and normally they're not like collateral warranties that may be assignable only once.
I would ask to see the Opinions and then assess who did them and whether they are still carrying PI cover or not.
That having been said -
You will find that Opinions issued by anyone, architect of engineer may be limited to "Visual Inspection only".
Whether the architect was involved in inspection of the works is irrelevant if he includes the "subject to visual inspection only" set of clauses.
He's no more exposed to liability through those Opinions if something is later discovered to be wrong than a guy who saw the site for the first time yesterday.
You can ask for limited opening up works to be undertaken to prove compliance - to ascertain the presence and depth of insulation in an external wall for example.
Sometimes the easiest and best way is to take our a brick, but more restricted areas can be investigated by using a Borescope - a 10mm hole is drilled through any building element, through which you place a mini-periscope.
Please don't take offence drunat but its possible you may have set AAM the wrong agenda, limiting discussion to the issues you as a layperson have raised.
I think the issues here may centre on the "why's" of non-completion as opposed to paper certificates that may not be worth the paper they are printed on.
The obvious question is - why isn't this house wholly complete and who is specifying and costing out the necessary completion works?
Even assuming the house if compliant as far as it is completed, the final amount of work could be very costly, especially if you cannot get a builder to take over the original build and offer his own certificate regarding the built work as noted above.
That having been said, I would be more worried about what deterioration in the building materials or fabric that might have occurred since work stopped - for example if the building isn't weather proofed or sealed or left in a secure manner.
In other words, its one thing to have issued certs months ago, but is the building still complaint now?
ONQ.
[broken link removed]
All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
Opinions of Compliance usually go with the title, and normally they're not like collateral warranties that may be assignable only once.
I would ask to see the Opinions and then assess who did them and whether they are still carrying PI cover or not.
That having been said -
You will find that Opinions issued by anyone, architect of engineer may be limited to "Visual Inspection only".
Whether the architect was involved in inspection of the works is irrelevant if he includes the "subject to visual inspection only" set of clauses.
He's no more exposed to liability through those Opinions if something is later discovered to be wrong than a guy who saw the site for the first time yesterday.
You can ask for limited opening up works to be undertaken to prove compliance - to ascertain the presence and depth of insulation in an external wall for example.
Sometimes the easiest and best way is to take our a brick, but more restricted areas can be investigated by using a Borescope - a 10mm hole is drilled through any building element, through which you place a mini-periscope.
Please don't take offence drunat but its possible you may have set AAM the wrong agenda, limiting discussion to the issues you as a layperson have raised.
I think the issues here may centre on the "why's" of non-completion as opposed to paper certificates that may not be worth the paper they are printed on.
The obvious question is - why isn't this house wholly complete and who is specifying and costing out the necessary completion works?
Even assuming the house if compliant as far as it is completed, the final amount of work could be very costly, especially if you cannot get a builder to take over the original build and offer his own certificate regarding the built work as noted above.
That having been said, I would be more worried about what deterioration in the building materials or fabric that might have occurred since work stopped - for example if the building isn't weather proofed or sealed or left in a secure manner.
In other words, its one thing to have issued certs months ago, but is the building still complaint now?
ONQ.
[broken link removed]
All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
Thanks onq for a very informative answer. the house is not complete because the owner ran out of money and the house is now repossessed by the bank. it is weather proofed and in our untrained opinion looks nearly complete. From what we can see it needs flooring, kitchen fit in, boiler, possibly heating controls and also tarmac outside. bathroom fittings are fit in but not hooked up. Basically we need to get professional to assess the work. We are thinking now to may be contact the builder and talk to him about completion costs? Do we actually need this builder's sign off to get the mortgage? as I said from what we can see we can move into the house once boiler is in and do remaining works as we go. we need snag for bargaining the price and obviously for any big things it might discover. Even if the builder says it will cost 50k to complete we probably won't hire him and we will do works as we go - the house looks liveable. the original architect said he oversaw the works and he saw the walls inside so he should give us a report without disclaimer "subject to visual inspection only". He said he has a PI - that's the reason we are still thinking of him as an option...
drunat,
You're very welcome.
This isn't intended as stone tablets from the mountain advice, its more an exposition/exploration of the reasoning behind best practice.
Okay, let's take a look at this situation from another direction.
The usual position is that the architects acting for the developer/vendor and prospective purchaser square off against one another.
However in this case if the original team completes the house to the original specification, the only difference between this and the original intentional builds is the hiatus/interval due to the lack of funds.
The [incomplete list of] risks to such a property might be -
Instances of architects being novated from developer to end-user exist in the current GCCC contracts and while its too early to see if this leads to significant case law in terms of conflict of interest, at least it is now becoming more common.
Given that the architect's focus at all times should be the promotion of good practice and a refusal to certify non-compliant work and assuming you or your solicitor see proof of his P.I. Cover, this may be the way forward in this case.
ONQ.
[broken link removed]
All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
You're very welcome.
This isn't intended as stone tablets from the mountain advice, its more an exposition/exploration of the reasoning behind best practice.
Okay, let's take a look at this situation from another direction.
The usual position is that the architects acting for the developer/vendor and prospective purchaser square off against one another.
However in this case if the original team completes the house to the original specification, the only difference between this and the original intentional builds is the hiatus/interval due to the lack of funds.
The [incomplete list of] risks to such a property might be -
- instability due to non-completion of structural elements and/or them not being adequately buttressed leading to a catastrophic collapse
- damage to finishes, fabric and services through extreme cold if left unheated.
- damage by weather if left incomplete and unsealed
- damage and fires by interlopers
- infestation by animals
- mould growth
Instances of architects being novated from developer to end-user exist in the current GCCC contracts and while its too early to see if this leads to significant case law in terms of conflict of interest, at least it is now becoming more common.
Given that the architect's focus at all times should be the promotion of good practice and a refusal to certify non-compliant work and assuming you or your solicitor see proof of his P.I. Cover, this may be the way forward in this case.
ONQ.
[broken link removed]
All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.