Surveyors Report Showing Roof Issues

The Last Beep

Hi All,

I'm a long time reader but first time poster.

Myself and my wife have recently agreed a price on a house in south Dublin, we're first time buyers so fairly new to all this. We're happy with the house having looked at quite a large number and agreed a fee which was close to asking (3% below, although asking has been reduced twice). Its a 4 bed semi built in 1930's, approx. 1600 sqft.

We knew when bidding that there would be some work required on the house, as its a 1930's build and BER G so we were prepared for changing boiler, rewiring, insulating etc.

We've now received the surveyors report and it has thrown up some issues we hadn't expected and could prove quite costly. No structural issues were picked up and the surveyor didn't warm us off the house but did note:

1. Slipped slates on roof and no roofing felt under the slates - surveyor recommends felting the roof as a matter of urgency and estimated a cost of €15,000-20,000

2. Main chimney stack needs repointing and new flashing with minor leaks in the attic space

3. Conservatory structure below standards and recommends removing

There were a number of other issues which would require some investment but probably nothing major that we hadn't considered.

In view of these findings I'm wondering if we'd be within our rights to go back to the EA and try to negotiate our offer downwards?

Also would anyone have a view on cost estimates for the above? Is the surveyor overstating it?

Any opinions appreciated!

MAJJ

The Last Beep wrote: »

Hi All,

I'm a long time reader but first time poster.

Myself and my wife have recently agreed a price on a house in south Dublin, we're first time buyers so fairly new to all this. We're happy with the house having looked at quite a large number and agreed a fee which was close to asking (3% below, although asking has been reduced twice). Its a 4 bed semi built in 1930's, approx. 1600 sqft.

We knew when bidding that there would be some work required on the house, as its a 1930's build and BER G so we were prepared for changing boiler, rewiring, insulating etc.

We've now received the surveyors report and it has thrown up some issues we hadn't expected and could prove quite costly. No structural issues were picked up and the surveyor didn't warm us off the house but did note:

1. Slipped slates on roof and no roofing felt under the slates - surveyor recommends felting the roof as a matter of urgency and estimated a cost of €15,000-20,000

2. Main chimney stack needs repointing and new flashing with minor leaks in the attic space

3. Conservatory structure below standards and recommends removing

There were a number of other issues which would require some investment but probably nothing major that we hadn't considered.

In view of these findings I'm wondering if we'd be within our rights to go back to the EA and try to negotiate our offer downwards?

Also would anyone have a view on cost estimates for the above? Is the surveyor overstating it?

Any opinions appreciated!

You are within your rights to change your offer, you need no reason as it's your offer. I would talk to the surveyor and ask their advice on costs and also ring a few builders for a phone quote. The EA will likely make light of the surveyors findings but it's your money.

It will depend on under bidders and their response and the expectations of the seller, you need to think about walking away and what it means to you.

I wish you the best with it.

elastico

After nearly 100 years urgent is a relative term and could mean next 5 years. As long as it's not leaking it may be ok for a few years, or even get a patching job to tide you over.

Ditto the chimney needing repointing. You could get the cracks and leaks siliconed to get a few more years from it.

Conservatory is more a decision for yourself whether to keep it or not.

athtrasna

Given the specific nature of your question I've moved it from Accommodation & Property as I think you will get better more qualified responses here.

Mod

The Last Beep

Any views on the cost estimate given by the surveyor? Is he over-estimating the cost of felting the roof? The slates are currently original so probably no guarantee that these could be re-used.

These issues are typical of houses of this age. They are things that will need to be taken care of sooner or later but are not structural or safety issues.
By all means try to reduce the offer but think hard before you go down that road. Are you prepared to lose the house over non critical issues such as this?

antiskeptic

The Last Beep wrote: »

We knew when bidding that there would be some work required on the house, as its a 1930's build and BER G so we were prepared for changing boiler, rewiring, insulating etc.

At that age you could assume more than that.

1. Slipped slates on roof and no roofing felt under the slates - surveyor recommends felting the roof as a matter of urgency and estimated a cost of €15,000-20,000

Slates themselves last for ever, effectively. The problem is that the nails used to attach them to the battens spanning the roof rafters corrode away and when they do, there's nothing, but friction between the slates lying on top and on either side, preventing them slipping. So, a windy night comes and you wake up to a dislodged or totally slipped slate.

I've a 100+ year old roof and although none of my slates have slipped, others on the same terrace have. I wouldn't dream of removing them either to fix them down or to lay felt. Rather, I'd figure on some way of bonding the slates from underneath so that they hold firm in place. A bit laborious and you'd need to figure out the right product (testing a few to make sure they bond well to slate) but done at a fraction of what you're talking about. Consider the fact that it takes a hefty wind to budge them with their corroded nails then figure the additional fixing provided by something that sticks them in place.

The felt provides a secondary layer of protection against rain which might blow up back upwards under the slates but if the lack of it hasn't cost my house any problem in 100 years I'm at a loss as to why anyone would consider it essential now. So what if a few drops blow up under the roof an onto the wooden structure or down onto the plaster ceiling below. It's going to evaporate and not cause any damage. It's a constant soaking or regular drip from a leak that causes damage. Adding felt would be fine if I was removing the slates anyway but if not then it wouldn't be a reason to strip the roof.

Urgency is the wrong word to be applying to it.

In view of these findings I'm wondering if we'd be within our rights to go back to the EA and try to negotiate our offer downwards?

You are within your rights to review your offer for any reason at any time up to contract signing. That's not to say you play silly buggers but certainly, unforeseen costs are a good reason to go back. I'm helping a friend out with a purchase and 10K worth of unforeseens are being kicked straight back to the vendor.

cpoh1

This is a 1930's house, they didnt come with insulation, felt on roofs, or even indeed concrete floors on ground level in a lot of cases. A couple of tiles loose should not constitute a renegotiation for a full roof replacement because times have moved on with building design.

You will be spending your life working on your house, and would be mad not to factor all these types of items into any future budgeting with any older house.

My advice - take a chance with the auctioneer and owners but dont be surprised if they tell ye where to go, these issues are quite normal on older houses.

Dardania

I agree with the other posters in the sense that it's naive to (in retrospect) to be surprised about these types of issues. I say this as someone who bought a 1950 house with some of those issues revealed in the survey (I was just as naive)

The only clanger I see that you can back with is the conservatory - if it's not fit to stand, you stand to lose floorspace. That is something you can argue the toss over. And you can throw into the conversation some of the other issues, to try get a few bob off...

sydthebeat

Dardania wrote: »

I agree with the other posters in the sense that it's naive to (in retrospect) to be surprised about these types of issues. I say this as someone who bought a 1950 house with some of those issues revealed in the survey (I was just as naive)

The only clanger I see that you can back with is the conservatory - if it's not fit to stand, you stand to lose floorspace. That is something you can argue the toss over. And you can throw into the conversation some of the other issues, to try get a few bob off...

a conservatory under 25 sq m doesnt have to comply with building regulations

Dardania

sydthebeat wrote: »

a conservatory under 25 sq m doesnt have to comply with building regulations

Didn't know that, but don't think it changes my point. My point is more about the house being advertised with a conservatory - if the surveyor says it's not fit to stand and should be demolished, they lose the use of something that was advertised...