Should we do a survey on a very new house?

_brendand_

We are in the process of buying our second house and wondering whether it's worthwhile to do a pre-purchase survey? We did with our first property but the two houses are completely different kettles of fish. The first one was a close to 100 year old terraced house in England that had been neglected for a number of years due to being occupied by a widower. This one is a 2 year old semi in Dublin. They seem to cost 4-500 quid so not a negligible amount of money. We definitely got our monies worth with the first house as it highlighted a bunch of problems, however I'm thinking in this case it will just tell us the obvious which is yeah, everythings grand.

Turbohymac

Would be a small amount of money very well spent ..the report would be detailed if you get the right company and would be legally binding in the event of anything they miss which might pop up at a later date.. there has been many issues with poor build quality and builders/subcontractors taking short cuts.. what about that priory hall complex.. there's many more similar structures around the country they just haven't been identified/given any problems to date..

K.Flyer

It should never be presumed that new properties are without issues.
As a plumber I have seen so many stupid mistakes on fairly new houses, internal sewer vents not piped correctly, or not piped at all.
Drainage pipework not connected correctly or damaged.
Poorly installed bathroom fittings, water tanks not correctly supported, basic shut off valves in inaccessible locations that you need to use a ladder to reach them.
Incorrectly plumbed showers and taps eg hot water going to cold tap etc.
Plus numerous other things including leaks.
I'm sure others in different trades could mention the problems they have found.

peneau

http://www.bregsforum.com/2017/01/26/defective-celtic-tiger-projects-the-cubes-sandyford-look-back-17/

lawred2

Turbohymac wrote: »

Would be a small amount of money very well spent ..the report would be detailed if you get the right company and would be legally binding in the event of anything they miss which might pop up at a later date.. there has been many issues with poor build quality and builders/subcontractors taking short cuts.. what about that priory hall complex.. there's many more similar structures around the country they just haven't been identified/given any problems to date..

Is that truly the case?

PGE1970

Not doing a survey would be lunacy.


If nothing else, it will highlight snagging issues.


If you are getting a mortgage, it might be a condition of the mortgage to get one done.


It's the best money that you will spend.

mickdw

As someone who carries out such surveys, I would say absolutely yes, get it done.
There are any number of issues that could be present be it boundary discrepancy, Building regulation non compliance, planning non compliance or structural defects that may not be obvious.
Most of my clients would go back to vendor with issues identified and save many multiples of the survey fee by way of reduction to purchase price.
I guess if the house is located in high demand area, renegotiating may not really be an option but regardless you need that survey to know what you are getting into. Once you sign for it, it's yours and you could find even if you have all the certs that you have bought something that will be impossible to sell.
It is most often regulation issues as opposed to structure that will be the major problem in my experience.

q85dw7osi4lebg

No need. it'll like have a 10 year homebond guarantee or similar, and any issues that do arise within the first while will be covered by the builder in most instances (*personal experience).

seamus

I'll go against the grain here and tell you not to bother with a two-year old house, but instead ensure you get copies of all of the engineer's/architects reports and all compliance certificates. Also get a copy of the planning application and all the associated documentation.

This will give you an indication of whether there were any deviations from the original plans, and also provides future insurance against possible issues; the engineer's/architects/electricians/plumbers professional indemnity insurance will kick in if there are any compliance issues.

The reason you get a surveyor on an older house is because any major structural or maintenance work required after you move in, will hit your pocket. If the house is two years old, any major remediation works required will have to covered by the people who certified the building was OK when it wasn't.

Turbohymac

Hi lawred 2.. I'm absolutely not a solicitor on this side. But any half decent structural engineer will go over the building in detail and highlight any potential issues that should get repaired..if for instance they state that the roof is in a good condition with no faults and a year later roof problems occur..we'll this company has signed off on it previously that all was ok when clearly it wasn't..well I think I'd have a very strong case in court against the company and their insurers...

Gumbo

Gustavo Big Spotlight wrote: »

No need. it'll like have a 10 year homebond guarantee or similar, and any issues that do arise within the first while will be covered by the builder in most instances (*personal experience).

Homebond 10 year guarantee didn't exist 2 years ago, and hasn't existed in some time.

Homebond are now in the insurance field and the Assigned Certifier field.

Gumbo

Turbohymac wrote: »

Hi lawred 2.. I'm absolutely not a solicitor on this side. But any half decent structural engineer will go over the building in detail and highlight any potential issues that should get repaired..if for instance they state that the roof is in a good condition with no faults and a year later roof problems occur..we'll this company has signed off on it previously that all was ok when clearly it wasn't..well I think I'd have a very strong case in court against the company and their insurers...

You woundnt.

The survey is only a visual inspection based on what was visable at the time of the survey. It carries many cavats that removes the Surveyor from any liability for anything that was missed on the day.

A Roof can be a wear and tear item also, slates crack from wind, external forces such as birds dropping item son them etc

There's no way you can go back a year later and claim something was up unless there's a very obvious structural or material defect that you can prove was there on the day the original certifier signed off on it.

q85dw7osi4lebg

kceire wrote: »

Homebond 10 year guarantee didn't exist 2 years ago, and hasn't existed in some time.

Homebond are now in the insurance field and the Assigned Certifier field.

Odd, since my 18 month home has a 10 year Homebond guarantee.

q85dw7osi4lebg

"In addition to buying your home from ***** New Homes each home is covered
by the 10 year Homebond structural guarantee scheme."

Gumbo

Gustavo Big Spotlight wrote: »

Odd, since my 18 month home has a 10 year Homebond guarantee.

Gustavo Big Spotlight wrote: »

"In addition to buying your home from ***** New Homes each home is covered
by the 10 year Homebond structural guarantee scheme."

http://www.homebond.ie/home_buyers/

https://www.homebond.ie/home_builders/

Both Insurance policies, they are different to the traditional 10 year defects guarantee that was around before and proved worthless to many.

Turbohymac

Wow. Kceire.. find that hard to fathom.. what you're saying would really make for loads of cowboys. Within the structural engineering sector.. go out have a quick look around back to office bang out report. NO comeback.. jaysus I might do a few of those reports a week from now on. Handy money or what.. no qualifications or expertise in that field but who cares. Sure I'd b indemnified...

Well I'd still prefer my chances of justice /compensation.. if I owned the house that sprang a problem that should have been picked up/identified by the surveyor. And no I wouldn't like to be on the surveyors side .
There was an earlier post by a structural surveyor maybe he would like to comment.

PGE1970

People buying a €15k second hand car would have it checked out by a mechanic but some people wouldnt pay €400 to survey a €300k house???:rolleyes:

K.Flyer

For many HomeBond was not worth the paper it was written on. They quickly wriggled out of paying to rectify homeowners who were affected by pyrite. I certainly wouldn't rely on HomeBond to be the saviour in the event of any issues.

Insurer refuses to pay for pyrite damage in buildings
Thousands face bills of up to €70,000 to repair pyrite damage to their homes after a leading building insurer refused to meet claims.
HomeBond, the building insurance agent, has contacted the owners of affected properties to tell them they will not accept liability or pay out on claims.

mickdw

Turbohymac wrote: »

Wow. Kceire.. find that hard to fathom.. what you're saying would really make for loads of cowboys. Within the structural engineering sector.. go out have a quick look around back to office bang out report. NO comeback.. jaysus I might do a few of those reports a week from now on. Handy money or what.. no qualifications or expertise in that field but who cares. Sure I'd b indemnified...

Well I'd still prefer my chances of justice /compensation.. if I owned the house that sprang a problem that should have been picked up/identified by the surveyor. And no I wouldn't like to be on the surveyors side .
There was an earlier post by a structural surveyor maybe he would like to comment.

Well the standard exclusions will state that covered up works, works that were not accessible are not being commented on.
I also note specifically that only aspects of the building regs that are visible are checked.
I've also added an exclusion re pyrite and associated defects and now knotweed also.
Planning permission and boundary check would be pretty nailed down though.
Re liability, I'd imagine if there is something that should have been seen omitted from report, I would be very likely be liable. That is what my insurance is for.
Re handy money, it's far from it. I spend the guts of 3 hours at property. I also generally have to do a 120 mile round trip to planning office plus an hour at the planning office so that's a day all in. Then the write up takes 1.5 days for me personally between checking boundary as surveyed against planning and land registry, checking the various building reg requirements against build date etc and generally putting report together with photos and docs -
So an insured professional in business doing 2.5 days work for 500 is a minimal charge and if my work was all surveys I wouldn't be able to operate the business at that level of fees.

I don't doubt there are people doing reports that take a fraction of that time. I've seen such reports that don't comment on planning permission and no boundary inspection etc.

Turbohymac

Thanks for clearing that up mickdw
It's just the mod kceire seemed to state that a survey carried out had little advantage as a legal document but I would prefer to have a survey carried out in any case. And if the surveyor was a real lazy sod and failed to spot something major I am sure he would be held in some line accountable /responsible for failing in his duties..

q85dw7osi4lebg

kceire wrote: »

http://www.homebond.ie/home_buyers/

https://www.homebond.ie/home_builders/

Both Insurance policies, they are different to the traditional 10 year defects guarantee that was around before and proved worthless to many.

Even better so!

Gumbo

Turbohymac wrote: »

Wow. Kceire.. find that hard to fathom.. what you're saying would really make for loads of cowboys. Within the structural engineering sector.. go out have a quick look around back to office bang out report. NO comeback.. jaysus I might do a few of those reports a week from now on. Handy money or what.. no qualifications or expertise in that field but who cares. Sure I'd b indemnified...

Well I'd still prefer my chances of justice /compensation.. if I owned the house that sprang a problem that should have been picked up/identified by the surveyor. And no I wouldn't like to be on the surveyors side .
There was an earlier post by a structural surveyor maybe he would like to comment.

You seem to be mixing up a lot of professions here. Structural surveyor, building survey, structural inspection etc

The only person that can do a structural survey is a structural engineer and he can only report on what’s bisabke to him.

Can you think of an example of an item that could be chased legally afterwards following one of these surveys? Genuine question.

Turbohymac wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up mickdw
It's just the mod kceire seemed to state that a survey carried out had little advantage as a legal document but I would prefer to have a survey carried out in any case. And if the surveyor was a real lazy sod and failed to spot something major I am sure he would be held in some line accountable /responsible for failing in his duties..

Where did I state it had little legal advantage?
You mentioned a structural survey in a property that the OP doesn’t own. You can only carry out a visual survey and any structural elements are hidden. You cannot carry out any invasive survey, opening up works or destructive works as part of this survey.

seamus

The purpose of the building survey is to provide forewarning for potential costs that you may encounter if you buy the property. You can then use this as leverage to get the seller to reduce the price to compensate, or to build in more contingency into your own funds. Or to pull out completely if there's something major and obvious.

The purpose of the building survey is not to provide an insurance policy against future costs that may arise.

To be able to claim against his insurance, he'd want to miss a right whopper, like huge cracks in the structure or exposed joists rotting to bits.

99nsr125

Homebond is broke
Ask the pyrite victims

Gustavo Big Spotlight wrote: »

No need. it'll like have a 10 year homebond guarantee or similar, and any issues that do arise within the first while will be covered by the builder in most instances (*personal experience).

Turbohymac

Hi kcere.. I'm certainly not mixing up professions. In any case were both gone completely off what the op was asking.. ie.. was it a good or bad idea to get a structural survey carried out on a house that's only a few years old.. I know that only a structural engineer can carry a survey and yes I think we might even agree that it's a limited inspection..if I were the seller I agree fully that I wouldn't like holes drilled through floors walls. Etc.. but as a buyer I would definitely get this survey carried out prior to purchase.. are we ok now mod.....no wonder boards is on the decline.. any further issues don't hesitate to PM

Gumbo

Turbohymac wrote: »

Hi kcere.. I'm certainly not mixing up professions. In any case were both gone completely off what the op was asking.. ie.. was it a good or bad idea to get a structural survey carried out on a house that's only a few years old.. I know that only a structural engineer can carry a survey and yes I think we might even agree that it's a limited inspection..if I were the seller I agree fully that I wouldn't like holes drilled through floors walls. Etc.. but as a buyer I would definitely get this survey carried out prior to purchase.. are we ok now mod.....no wonder boards is on the decline.. any further issues don't hesitate to PM

That’s the thing, you don’t understand that a structural survey cannot be carried out on an existing dwelling without invasive works. What you are describing is a typical, visual building survey that will give an opinion on any issues that are visable. Planning issues and boundary issues, which are all standard items in any building surveys in my experience.

A pre purchase building survey is always advisable but a structural survey is a totally different survey.

*Note.
If you have a problem with boards and it’s decline, take that up with a mod for the forum or indeed the main players on the site. No need to try attempt be a smart arse with smart arse comments. When I’m posting in here, I am not a mod unless specifically stated.

Mark1916

Turbohymac wrote: »

Hi kcere.. I'm certainly not mixing up professions. In any case were both gone completely off what the op was asking.. ie.. was it a good or bad idea to get a structural survey carried out on a house that's only a few years old.. I know that only a structural engineer can carry a survey and yes I think we might even agree that it's a limited inspection..if I were the seller I agree fully that I wouldn't like holes drilled through floors walls. Etc.. but as a buyer I would definitely get this survey carried out prior to purchase.. are we ok now mod.....no wonder boards is on the decline.. any further issues don't hesitate to PM

I got a building survey carried out first and waited to see if it called out any structural (or potential) problems, there was one in ours so I engaged a structural engineer to have a look at this specific issue to give me ease of mind but again it was purely a visual inspection as he won’t have permission for opening up works on the house! Both were well worth the money paid!

_brendand_

People seem to be on the side of getting a survey done. Just to throw another fact in the mixer, we have got a building regs compliance certificate from the vendors solicitor, if that makes any difference at all.

Gumbo

_brendand_ wrote: »

People seem to be on the side of getting a survey done. Just to throw another fact in the mixer, we have got a building regs compliance certificate from the vendors solicitor, if that makes any difference at all.

The Building Survey will highlight issues that may have risen after the house was signed off. So for example, cracks that could be significant in nature will be noted and you will be advised to engage a structural engineer to investigate and monitor.

The owners may have carried out alterations that would breach the building or planning regulations.

The survey should give you an idea of current condition. I would still get it done to be honest.

Mr. Grieves

At the very least, the surveyor will highlight any modifications requiring planning permission or certificates of compliance that your solicitor can chase up on. Your solicitor is unlikely to visit the house. Money well spent.