Surveyor missed issue with house

dnme

I posted recently about gaping holes in the attic felt of a house I recently bought. The consensus seems to be that the roof tiles will have to come off in order to fix this issue.

Prior to purchasing the place, I employed a structural engineer to survey the place. He inspected the entire house including the attic. He charged me close to €500 for his report. The report did not mention anything about the attic felt.

I guess my question is, do I have any come back here ? Am I entitled to a refund from the engineer or even the cost of the repair ?

Addle

Was it a visual survey only?
Would a surveyor pick up on an issue like that in a visual survey?

cronos

dnme wrote: »

Am I entitled to a refund from the engineer or even the cost of the repair ?

Did he find anything at all?

Sleeper12

Surveyors are a complete waste of money. They are just about ok for a snag list on a new build but would not trust one while buying a house.
My own sister bought a house passed by her surveyor & turned out it had flood damage. She couldn't move in due to mould. Long story short she was lucky enough to be able to reverse the sale.
Always use an engineer rather than a surveyor.

Steve

Did you sign a contract for them to do the survey beforehand?
Any Ts&Cs in it?
What was the scope of the survey?
How was the problem found - was it visually apparent?

If you think you have a case then go through small claims court.

dnme

Thanks for all the replies. The surveyor is an engineer. He carried out a visual inspection. He was onsite for about 2 hours. He tested all the usual tings such as moisture levels etc. He compiled a report which outlined one or two minor issues but nothing about the felt.

Steve

Was the felt issue apparent in a visual inspection?

dnme

Steve wrote: »

Was the felt issue apparent in a visual inspection?

The felt issue is very visible. There are three or four holes in the felt that are greater than 1 foot in diameter. There are one or to places where it is hanging down. Had he simply looked up while in the attic, he would have seen it.

Ive just had a look at the report. I quote as follows from it
"Attic:
This area is insulated with approximately 300mm thickness of insulation.
There are no structural straps on the gables walls. No ridge bracing has been fitted to the prefabricated roof trusses.

General:
The roof consists of concrete tiles on battens on felt on pre-fabricated roof trusses.
The extended area to the front is the same construction except that there is a cut roof.
The external walls are approximately 300mm thick, plastered solid outside and plastered solid on the inside.
The floor is concrete construction.
"

Steve

I assume you have photos as evidence.

Did you contact the engineer / surveyor?

If this is the case, I would speculate that SSC would rule in your favour as regards a refund or partial refund as you did not get the service you paid for. I doubt you would get the cost of repair though.

dnme

Steve wrote: »

I assume you have photos as evidence.

Did you contact the engineer / surveyor?

If this is the case, I would speculate that SSC would rule in your favour as regards a refund or partial refund as you did not get the service you paid for. I doubt you would get the cost of repair though.

Photo of one of the holes below. Who / what is SSC ?

Steve

Wow, that shouldn't have been missed in a visual inspection.

SSC = Small Claims Court which would be your best course of action if they don't agree to negotiate with you.

Right2Write

It might be more hassle than it's worth for the money you hope to recover. You say you paid c.€500. The court may decide that report is deficient in this aspect you raise, but that this only represents x% of the total value of the report. You'll hardly get back the full cost and it could be well be sub €100. There might be lots of other useful info in your report.

Apart from that, is it a real problem at present? Is the roof leaking? The 'felt' or membrane is there as a backup if any water gets through the roof covering, tiles in this case. What is the slope of the roof?

If the slope is adequate and roof is well constructed and no water is coming in, I'd suggest leave well alone. Or just patch it as logically as you can from the inside.

Sleeper12

Right2Write wrote:

It might be more hassle than it's worth for the money you hope to recover. You say you paid c.€500. The court may decide that report is deficient in this aspect you raise, but that this only represents x% of the total value of the report. You'll hardly get back the full cost and it could be well be sub €100. There might be lots of other useful info in your report.

I've been in the small claims court a few times. The judge tends to side with the consumer. I've actually seen judgments for more than was being sued for. I can't say what would happen in this case as I'm not a judge or in the legal profession but I'd encourage any consumer not to be afraid of the scc.

Right2Write

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I've been in the small claims court a few times. The judge tends to side with the consumer. I've actually seen judgments for more than was being sued for. I can't say what would happen in this case as I'm not a judge or in the legal profession but I'd encourage any consumer not to be afraid of the scc.

Sure, but presumably the engineer in this case would argue that the majority of his/her report is valid and useful to the customer, bar this one aspect.

By way, I have my own doubts about usefulness of the normal building surveys for second hand properties. Most of the issues you could spot yourself with a bit of care and the ones you can't, the professional will probably cover themselves by excluding parts of the building they have no practical access to.

But I don't agree re your dismissal of building or quantity surveyors. They know a great deal about how buildings are put together, the materials used and the specifications at time of construction etc. Civil engineers are far more general purpose. The usefulness of either comes down to individuals I suppose though and how thorough they are and what they charge.

Sleeper12

Right2Write wrote:

Sure, but presumably the engineer in this case would argue that the majority of his/her report is valid and useful to the customer, bar this one aspect.

Usually the way the judge in a small claims court would look at this as a whole job. Judge would see surveyor as incompetent. They'd laugh at him if his defence was but I got some of it right.
If surveyor was legitimate with insurance I wonder could a claim be made against his insurance for the cost of fixing the roof?

Steve

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If surveyor was legitimate with insurance I wonder could a claim be made against his insurance for the cost of fixing the roof?

I would say not. The most you'd get is a refund of the cost of the survey.

I'm not an expert though, that's what small claims Judges are for.

Right2Write

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If surveyor was legitimate with insurance I wonder could a claim be made against his insurance for the cost of fixing the roof?

No indication that I've seen here that there is anything wrong with the roof, bar that the 'felt' is torn in a few places.

So why would the surveyor/ engineer pay for 'fixing the roof'?

We had a survey done here when purchasing house. An issue with the septic tank came to light afterwards. But there was point in taking the surveyor to court over this aspect.

Sleepy

Would seriously doubt the competence of most surveyors based on our own experience and that of most my friends have dealt with.

Our guy managed to miss that the plaster in the front two rooms had boasted and was rotten back to the bonding...

gutteruu

Forget the small claims. Surveyor will have professional indemnity insurance exactly for this reason. If you even try to claim against him he will **** a brick and hand it over instantly as a claim against this would drive his policy through the roof (it's approx. 2k per year).

Calahonda52

So, boys and girls: what will the statement of claim be for here?
While the felt is torn, yes, but is there any evidence of directly attributable loss to the OP?
I don't see any.

cheif kaiser

If this oversight is going to cost the OP money that he could have had reduced off the price of the house, then yes, I would say try the small claims court. I've done it a few time now and it's a very easy process which only cost €25. File your claim online, the surveyor will then receive a notification of your claim, he then has 2 weeks to reply and if he fails to reply, you are automatically awarded the claim against him. If he does reply and disputes the claim, a date will be set to appear in front of a judge, no solicitors, just you, him and the judge. In all of my cases, they settled without appearing in court. The mere threat of court, seems to be enough to have them cough up!

happywithlife

Isn't one of conditions of the SCC that you outline prior attempts to.resolve the situation- so would OP not have enough to go back to surveyor first to see what they offer I terms of resolution?

Steve

Again, if all that happened was the surveyor failed to provide the service they were contracted to do then their liability is the cost of the service.

You would have to prove there was malice or willful negligence to go further than that.

Cerco

Steve wrote: »

Again, if all that happened was the surveyor failed to provide the service they were contracted to do then their liability is the cost of the service.

You would have to prove there was malice or willful negligence to go further than that.

I would disagree with your analysis. Imho persons providing a service must have professional indemnity insurance to deal with issues like this. There is no need to prove malice or wilful negligence.
Negligence of itself should be sufficient.
If a plumber caused a leak which resulted in €1000's damage to your property , do you think he would be only liable to pay you the €80 call out fee?
Would you have to prove malice or wilful neglect?

Op read the contract you signed and then consult your solicitor.
I would expect the solicitor you used for conveyance would assist you.

johnny_adidas

Cerco wrote: »

...... If a plumber caused a leak which resulted in €1000's damage to your property , do you think he would be only liable to pay you the €80 call out fee?
Would you have to prove malice or wilful neglect?

Op read the contract you signed and then consult your solicitor.
I would expect the solicitor you used for conveyance would assist you.

Compo nation in full flow here........ The hint is in the title of the thread, he "missed" the defect. He didn't cause any damage per your example nor has the defect worsened as a result of his report.
At worst it's a poor report which failed to identify a defect. Who's to say he even had safe access to the areas in question?
OP Usually there's a line in the report somewhere which covers any defects which are not apparent or concealed at the time of the inspection. Is this the case here?
Furthermore why should anyone claim the cost of a full reroof for a few tears in felt? Why stop there, why not sue the person who was employed to roof the house in the first place?
I pity anyone who does these reports, be it surveyors, engineers, architects etc. €500 is not enough for the time to carry out a survey and prepare a report especially when everyone is looking for someone else to blame these days

dathi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-vg10iUzmE
there you go job sorted

listermint

To play devil's advocate here.

Most surveyors do what is called a shoulder height inspection to attics. Was this detailed in your survey or any correspondence?

This literally means they get a chair or small ladder and peer into the attic shoulder height to give an assessment of condition.

You will find few that will get into the attic and inspect everything unless you specify this and pay extra for it.

I would review your correspondence in detail to see what inspection of attic was provided

Right2Write

johnny_adidas wrote: »

Compo nation in full flow here.

Fully agree, particularly in view of advice to OP to threaten legal case and people will cough up.

This is what drives up costs for everybody. If there was major loss, I'd fully support the idea of a claim. But relatively petty claims like this just drive up insurance costs and follow on costs for future works.

Sleeper12

Right2Write wrote:

This is what drives up costs for everybody. If there was major loss, I'd fully support the idea of a claim. But relatively petty claims like this just drive up insurance costs and follow on costs for future works.

Small claims court cases don't push up the cost of insurance at all. There are no solicitors involved. It costs 25 Euro to bring a scc case.

beauf

johnny_adidas wrote: »

Compo nation in full flow here........ ...

I think whats in full flow is the shoddy standards of the building industry, at every level from poor workmanship, inspection, and regulation and governance and enforcement. The consumer is left to carry the cost of everyone else failures. Where is the consumer protection.

If surveys are not to be relied on, whats the point of doing them.

Right2Write

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Small claims court cases don't push up the cost of insurance at all. There are no solicitors involved. It costs 25 Euro to bring a scc case.

They will push up costs though. If I was a building surveyor or engineer providing a service like this and I was met with several claims for minor omissions my reaction would be: OK I'll inspect the property for you but instead of a reasonable fee of €500 which I used to charge, I'm now obliged to charge €1000 to cover people who threaten me with court for minor omissions. Take it or leave it.

beauf

Why would you want to provide a service like this...

dnme wrote: »

T....holes in the felt that are greater than 1 foot in diameter....
"

... and charge twice as much for it....

Calahonda52

Cerco wrote: »

I would disagree with your analysis. Imho persons providing a service must have professional indemnity insurance to deal with issues like this. There is no need to prove malice or wilful negligence.
Negligence of itself should be sufficient.
If a plumber caused a leak which resulted in €1000's damage to your property , do you think he would be only liable to pay you the €80 call out fee?
Would you have to prove malice or wilful neglect?

Op read the contract you signed and then consult your solicitor.
I would expect the solicitor you used for conveyance would assist you.

Well I disagree with yours.
I asked already:
So, boys and girls: what will the statement of claim be for here?
While the felt is torn, yes, but is there any evidence of directly attributable loss to the OP?
I don't see any that will run in the SCC, you can';t use it for upset and stress and angst.

cheif kaiser wrote: »

If this oversight is going to cost the OP money that he could have had reduced off the price of the house, then yes, I would say try the small claims court. I've done it a few time now and it's a very easy process which only cost €25. File your claim online, the surveyor will then receive a notification of your claim, he then has 2 weeks to reply and if he fails to reply, you are automatically awarded the claim against him. If he does reply and disputes the claim, a date will be set to appear in front of a judge, no solicitors, just you, him and the judge. In all of my cases, they settled without appearing in court. The mere threat of court, seems to be enough to have them cough up!

O learned one, perhaps you might outline the case for the OP in the SSC setting out a statement of claim based on what might happen in the future.

Right2Write

beauf wrote: »

Why would you want to provide a service like this...



... and charge twice as much for it....

Clearly you are not self employed like many surveyors or engineers that do these sort of inspections. There comes a point when it's not worth the hassle of dealing with people unless you get well remunerated.

I don't work in this area but I have come across customers in my line, who take all the goodness out of the reasonable fee that you've charged them. The people who suffer are the ones that follow.

beauf

Its interesting that you have no problem with the idea of providing a poor service and over charging for it. Or any word of complaint about the lack of protection from tradesman or the building trade in general. For some reason victim blaming is OK.

People make mistakes. But why is there no consumer protection in this area. The flawed BER system is perfect example of this.

Why is there not a standard to these surveys that can checked online to see what is checked. And a standard fine if things are missed.

There needs to be a bond held in house sales that if defects become apparent after the sale the bond can be used to cover these problems. I think other countries have this.

beauf

Right2Write wrote: »

Clearly you are not self employed like many surveyors or engineers that do these sort of inspections. There comes a point when it's not worth the hassle of dealing with people unless you get well remunerated.

I don't work in this area but I have come across customers in my line, who take all the goodness out of the reasonable fee that you've charged them. The people who suffer are the ones that follow.

None of that is relevant.

The op is the victim. He's just looking for redress. Its not his fault there are limited options accessible to him.

The correct way to fix this re lay the felt. Patching might work but won't be as good. Might be good enough.

Right2Write

beauf wrote: »

Its interesting that you have no problem with the idea of providing a poor service and over charging for it.

You misunderstand - you get what you pay for. This person is charged €500 for a survey of a house. Think of what is involved - time & costs to travel to the property, time to examine, time & costs assoc with writing up report and dealing with queries, overheads assoc with running business.

Client wants to be charged a reasonable amount, gets a report which will contain much useful information but which fails to point out one deficiency and is then advised to threaten legal action and the surveyor will cough up. If the public want a full belts and braces survey plus the option to sue for the odd oversight, then they may expect to have pay a lot more. Otherwise it's not worth the hassle.

I know people involved in the BER assessment schemes and it's amazing how little the public want to pay for what is a detailed examination, if done properly.

beauf

Checking the roof its kinda fundamental in a building or shelter of any kind.
I'm not sure what kind of survey (or professionalism) would consider it an incidental.
Especially considering its not a minor inconvenience or cost to fix properly, rather than patch.

The BER is not a detailed examination. Its a educated calculation (guess) based on assumptions about building standards and regulations. We know these are largely ignored and largely not enforced.

The government requires local authorities to inspect just 12-15% of buildings. In 2010 — the last year for which figures are available — the average local authority inspected just a quarter of buildings. Four local authorities failed to meet their target, and two — Wexford County and Waterford City Councils — inspected no buildings at all. (2)

None of the houses examined for a study of 52 homes built between 1997 and 2002 complied fully with building regulations. The study was commissioned by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland but never published. Green building magazine Construct Ireland, which I’m deputy editor of, obtained it last year.

The study examined the homes for compliance with regulations on energy efficiency, ventilation and “heat producing appliances”. Just one complied with energy efficiency rules in full, almost half failed to meet the rules for heat producing appliances, and over 40% failed to minimum ventilation standards. (5)

https://passivehouseplus.ie/home/blogs/item/1444-irish-construction-industry-has-long-opposition-to-higher-standards


As someone said earlier you'd have to know in advance what a 500 survey is expected to cover. That is doesn't cover even a basic inspection of the roof, seems odd to me. It would be like getting a pre purchase report on a car that doesn't look at the engine.

Right2Write

beauf wrote: »

Checking the roof its kinda fundamental in a building or shelter of any kind.
I'm not sure what kind of survey (or professionalism) would consider it an incidental.

There is no indication from OP that the surveyor did not check roof insofar as they could, the timbers and slates/ tiles etc.

If this is all in good condition, properly pitched and constructed, then the presence or otherwise or quality of the 'felt' is immaterial. It's there primarily as an emergency back up but I would not nor I assume you, like to be relying on it.

If on the other hand, the surveyor/ engineer failed to spot rotting timbers that were visible or deficiencies in the roof cladding that were visible - then you'd consider that serious.

It's a bit like buying a secondhand waterproof jacket that is good in all respects except it has a small defect in an inside pocket. The jacket still functions and keeps you dry.

Right2Write

beauf wrote: »

The BER is not a detailed examination. Its a educated calculation (guess) based on assumptions about building standards and regulations. We know these are largely ignored and largely not enforced.

Off topic, but the BER was originally intended as a meaningful examination of a building. There seems to have been a 'race to the bottom' in terms of cost and now it seems mostly based on the age of the house and as you say, assumptions about building standards and regulations, which are largely ignored and largely not enforced.

But there are BER assessors out there that will do a more thorough survey to identify insofar as possible the real situation and identify what steps can be taken to improve the energy efficiency of the house. But clearly they charge more.

Cerco

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Well I disagree with yours.
I asked already:
So, boys and girls: what will the statement of claim be for here?
While the felt is torn, yes, but is there any evidence of directly attributable loss to the OP?
I don't see any that will run in the SCC,
O learned one, perhaps you might outline the case for the OP in the SSC setting out a statement of claim based on what might happen in the futjure.

You may disagree but perhaps you should have read my post before doing so.
I never suggested using the SCC.

Ongo Goblogian

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Well I disagree with yours.
I asked already:
So, boys and girls: what will the statement of claim be for here?
While the felt is torn, yes, but is there any evidence of directly attributable loss to the OP?

Op is about to buy a house, gets a surveyor to check the house for defects, surveyor gives thumbs up and says house is hunky dory! OP bids based on this assessment.

When OP checks the house he can clearly see damage to the roof felt that the surveyor omitted. Cost of repair of felt is what the OP is losing and if he had of knowing this he could have adjusted what he paid to purchase house in the first place/negotiated a better price.

So yes the OP is out of pocket because of a less than competent surveyor. There is a lot of people out there bluffing their way through jobs they have no competence for and they usually charge >€200 an hour for the privilege. Only way to stop them is to expose them!

beauf

Right2Write wrote: »

There is no indication from OP that the surveyor did not check roof insofar as they could, the timbers and slates/ tiles etc.

If this is all in good condition, properly pitched and constructed, then the presence or otherwise or quality of the 'felt' is immaterial. It's there primarily as an emergency back up but I would not nor I assume you, like to be relying on it.

If on the other hand, the surveyor/ engineer failed to spot rotting timbers that were visible or deficiencies in the roof cladding that were visible - then you'd consider that serious.

It's a bit like buying a secondhand waterproof jacket that is good in all respects except it has a small defect in an inside pocket. The jacket still functions and keeps you dry.

If the felt was not mentioned you can't assume the rest was checked. I can't assume it wasn't. But it seems unlikely.

The felt comes into play in a number of situations. Its not superfluous.

HONKEY TONK

johnny_adidas wrote: »

Compo nation in full flow here........ The hint is in the title of the thread, he "missed" the defect. He didn't cause any damage per your example nor has the defect worsened as a result of his report.
At worst it's a poor report which failed to identify a defect. Who's to say he even had safe access to the areas in question?
OP Usually there's a line in the report somewhere which covers any defects which are not apparent or concealed at the time of the inspection. Is this the case here?
Furthermore why should anyone claim the cost of a full reroof for a few tears in felt? Why stop there, why not sue the person who was employed to roof the house in the first place?
I pity anyone who does these reports, be it surveyors, engineers, architects etc. €500 is not enough for the time to carry out a survey and prepare a report especially when everyone is looking for someone else to blame these days

And this is why Ireland has " Sure tis grand" attitude

If i pay someone to do a job for €5 or €5000, I expect it to be done correctly.

€500 is not enough for the time to carry out a survey and prepare a report especially when everyone is looking for someone else to blame these days

If this is the attitude then jog on because im not paying someone to do a half arsed job

beauf

Right2Write wrote: »

Off topic, but the BER was originally intended as a meaningful examination of a building. There seems to have been a 'race to the bottom' in terms of cost and now it seems mostly based on the age of the house and as you say, assumptions about building standards and regulations, which are largely ignored and largely not enforced.

But there are BER assessors out there that will do a more thorough survey to identify insofar as possible the real situation and identify what steps can be taken to improve the energy efficiency of the house. But clearly they charge more.

That some BER assessors will go beyond the BER does not change the fact that the BER itself is flawed.

Its a sticking plaster after the fact due there being no meaningful adherence to building standards or enforcement of same. If you had that you wouldn't need the BER in the first place.

the_pen_turner

I usually side with the tradesman but this is wrong.
the surveyer should be help liable for it. it is a basic and obvious defect. its not like a pipe under the floor where you cant see it.

saying that this is the reason the building industry is failing.most customers want everything for nothing. its a race to the bottom
tradesmen need to be paid properly or our business will fail.

500 is not enough to do a survey properly, customers wont pay what it should cost

beauf

HONKEY TONK wrote: »

And this is why Ireland has " Sure tis grand" attitude

If i pay someone to do a job for €5 or €5000, I expect it to be done correctly.

If this is the attitude then jog on because im not paying someone to do a half arsed job

I agree. I don't get the couldn't care less attitude.

beauf

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I usually side with the tradesman but this is wrong.
the surveyer should be help liable for it. it is a basic and obvious defect. its not like a pipe under the floor where you cant see it.

saying that this is the reason the building industry is failing.most customers want everything for nothing. its a race to the bottom
tradesmen need to be paid properly or our business will fail.

500 is not enough to do a survey properly, customers wont pay what it should cost

My problem is not with the individual in the OP. I don't know what was agreed.

But the building industry has a terrible reputation for this kinda thing. As do tradesman in general. My problem is why people think its ok to have such bad standards.

Good tradesmen and professionals should have a means of distinguishing themselves from those of a lesser standard.

HONKEY TONK

beauf wrote: »

I agree. I don't get the couldn't care less attitude.

It comes from people who are scared to say anything and presume its the norm.

I was like that...Then moved to Germany for 10 years....Came back and copped on that people pat themselves on the back for a half arsed job

HONKEY TONK

the_pen_turner wrote: »

500 is not enough to do a survey properly, customers wont pay what it should cost

Thats fine. The Surveyor should inform the OP to expect that the Survey will be not be done properly for €500 to set the OPs expectations before handing over the money.

Jimllfixit

DMNE,

Did you actually go back to the surveyor and ask for the money back? I don't think I've seen any comment where they said they wouldn't give you the money back.

For €500, they were asked to check on a house worth presumably many 1000's of euro which you might not have bought had you known. There is no easy way to repair felt like that, you have to take the tiles/slates off to repair it. As the damage seems to be at the apex, it is not quite so bad, as you have to take slates/tiles off FROM THE TOP.

I think that is gross negligence. If felt is there, it is there for a purpose. For a start, its main function is to stop condensation dripping down into the attic. You could be regretting that for many years to come.

There is also the question as to how it happened; it would be a very unlikely thing to happen after the roof was built, as it is well protected by the joists and battens.

Your consequential loss could run into thousands. Don't worry about the €500, go for the €50,000 to put it right.