In 2009, my mother helped my buy my first house. Esurv, the company recommended by tthe morgage provider ( Barclays/ woolwich) carried out the survey. We immediately started working through the issues flagged up as urgent in the Esurv report, treating various timbers (including in the loft space) having new firewalls erected in the loft, replacing guttering and fascia boards etc. We then turned out attention to the advice that 'the roof is in a servicable state of repair and free from visible distortion, but some strengthening may be required'
We called a builder to advise on how to go about strenghtening the existing roof structure anticipating at most £10,000. He stuck his head into the loft space, swore loudly and said "you need a structral engineer." He wouldn't even go up in to the loft, because he thought there was an actual possibility of his weight bringing the whole lot down! from that I surmise that the surveyor hadn't even looked into the loft space. A 750kg water tank was resting on two flimsy ceiling beams, the strain, poorly distributed had actually broken a purline. The roof was sagging badly, partly due the original slates having been replaced by heavier concrete tiles (which we were aware of), but more so because two dormers had been cut into the roof, and not properly reinforced.The dormers were collapsing back into the house and the ridge was sagging causing some of the beams to pull off the ridge timber- one was not attached at its top end at all, and several others were clinging on by their fingertips ( the builder took photos throughout the works, so we have pictorial evidence of the problems) As I'm sure you can undestand from the above, the roof was in a dangerous state, and it is possible the whole thing could have given way, in which case a 750kg tank would have been unleashed on the bedroom below.
I would add that the ridge, and the area around the front dormer is visibly sagging in photos taken at the time of purchase, something that should ( one might think) have raised alarm bells in any surveyors mind- I attributed this to the age of the house and nothing more- but I not a surveyor!
The whole roof structure had to be removed and completly replaced at an cost of approximately £25,000. Our total losses, including professional fees, removals, storage, redecorating etc, have been assessed professionally at over £40,000. (And before you ask, of course we explored less drastic options- but the roof was way beyond any sort of minor remedial works.) And to add insult to injury, the timbers we'd paid to have treated at the beginning and the new fire walls all had to be ripped out and replaced.
The cost of the necessary works was far higher than had been anticipated based on Esurv's report and the unexpected expenditure and disruption has put a severe strain on me and my mother. Were it not for her help, and some fortunate coincidences, I would have lost the house and with it any chance of getting on the property ladder for the forseeable future. As it is the last few months have been very difficult, even meeting day to day living expenses has been a challenge and the inevitable, seemingly minor expenses you'd expect as part of running a house have occasioned distress disproportionate to their size.
The work began in April of last year, and since that time my mother has been in contact with Esurv with the aim of recovering a realistic amount, to bring us back to the position we would have been in with proper advice at the time of purchase. I can only say esurv have been very unhelpful, presumably seeking to prolong the process until we give up. Currently the correspondence consists of wholly inadequate offers, (bordering on insulting) and preposterous objections and suggestions from the claims department and their appointed 'expert', suggesting (for instance) that we could have done the job for less if we had permanently abandoned the top floor accommodation! The professional diminution survey we were forced to get (esurv refused to consider our claim without one) has been completely ignored, although we used an individual who works regularly FOR esurv in this capacity.
We have come to the conclusion that regrettably the only way to make progress is to take them to court, to bring an end to the time consuming and fruitless communications with Esurv.
It is clear that Esurv's only interest in the matter was protecting the bank's investment and now minimising their costs, and not acting in the interests of their clients, or taking responsibility for the devastating consequences of their professional failings.
