Structural surveyor or is valuer enough?

Hello,

Im sale agreed on a mid-terraced house that was built around 40 years ago.

The bank is sending out a valuer and they have told us that he is a retired engineer and that if there are any structural problems he can point them out for us.

Is this enough given that the house isnt that old?

I always thought you were supposed to get your own independent structural surveyor aside fomr the anks valuer but other people are insisting thats not necessary for a youngish terraced house and that i would just be wasting my money?

what would anyone else do?

The guy may be great, see what he spots , he is free

it depends how detailed his report is, normally the banks valuer is not very construction savvy but obviously this may b different if he is an engineer. the 300 quid or so mite save u a lot more in d long run. I was speaking to a friend recently who had a surveyor do a report but he flat out refused to stand over it and put in a disclaimer...not exactly encouraging!

The banks valuer failed to note a major problem with the roof of the house I'm buying. Luckily I got an architect in and he noticed it straight away - it's actually visably sagging! Once it was pointed out to me it was very obvious! I suspect the banks valuer may have just gone by the house on the bus or something!

Got a hefty reduction in purchase price thanks to him, to cover the cost of repairs. Money well spent in my opinion. I thought my case was unusual but since it happened I heard so many scare stories!

Basically you need a valuation report in order to get a mortgage. A structural survey is for your peace of mind.

Although the valuer is a retired engineer he has only been instructed to carry out a valuation report so you shouldn't depend on him to highlight any potential pitfalls.

make sure you get an engineer to take a look we are in the process of buying a 6 year old house and were about to sign the contracts when the solicitor advised us to get an engineer just to be safe. best money we ever spent he found evinence of subsidance on the path along the back that may lead to long term problems so we are still negotiating a price reduction at the moment.

What about a house that is only 3 years old ?


Would many people risk valuation only ? In my case it would be the same company doing the valuation as would be doing the survey. Therefore I'm thinking that the level of expertise of the person involved would be the same ie they would be able to notice a serious problem and would have to note this in their valuation just as they would note it in their survey.

Granted the valuation isn't as in-depth as the survey since they don't go into attic space etc but on the other hand surveys don't check plumbing or electrics. I'm not trying to penny pinch here - the money I would save on not getting a survey won't be spent on plasma screens or the like but it would be the difference between having a kitchen table or having to wait until Christmas before being able to afford one...

I have the added consideration of work that the vendor has done to the house. They put in an attic conversion and in doing so made some changes to the plumbing/electrics. The work is certified as being compliant with building regs but even if I were to get a survey done they wouldn't check the electrics/plumbing!!

Is this stipulation of not checking electrics/plumbing an official statement to avoid litigation and in reality the surveyor will comment on elec/plumb ?
(The surveyor in question is registerd and has been mentioned very favourably on this forum previously)..

Any comments on any of the above would be gratefully received. Apologies for the disjointed nature of the post - it was done in severe haste!

You need to keep in mind the fact that the bank's valuer is just that - the bank's, not yours.

If their valuer fails to spot something he ought reasonably to have spotted, and you try to sue him later, he has no duty to you and thus no liability. If you employ a surveyor, he has a duty to you - although they usually insert so many caveats in their contracts that any liability is rendered non-existent!!

Also, a bank's valuation tends to be very cursory.

If only 3 years old, perhaps the house might still be covered by HomeBond in the event of any problems? I have no experience of HomeBond though, so you should check it out by doing a search on AAM for relevant threads.

Thanks for the reply Sherman.

You need to keep in mind the fact that the bank's valuer is just that - the bank's, not yours.

Click to expand...

which leads me to a gripe I aired on another thread.. if it's the bank's valuer why am I paying for it!!

perhaps the house might still be covered by HomeBond in the event of any problems?

Click to expand...

have heard a few horror stories about Homebond so wouldn't be too keen to rely on it for anything... anyone any positive Homebond tales ?

The bank's valuer's only job is to make sure the property is worth the value of the loan.....as long as it can be sold for at least that price they have no obligation and dont care about it's condition.