A survey can have a significant influence on a property transaction and, in some cases, on the price ultimately agreed between buyer and seller.
However, Level 2 and Level 3 Home Survey reports are ultimately professional opinions. Different surveyors can inspect the same building and reach very different conclusions about the seriousness of a defect, the extent of remedial work required and the likely cost.
That is where a Defect Analysis inspection can be particularly useful.
In a recent case, a purchaser’s Level 3 Home Survey raised a number of concerns relating to the roof, timber decay, possible woodworm, dampness and water ingress.
Those concerns were then relied upon by the purchaser to propose a substantial package of remedial works totalling approximately £75,000, including full roof works, scaffolding, timber treatment, damp repairs and associated making good. The purchaser subsequently sought to use those figures as the basis for a significant renegotiation of the agreed purchase price.
The seller did not agree that the condition of the property justified works of that scale and instructed Stokemont to provide an independent Defect Analysis inspection.
Our findings produced a very different picture.
What Had Been Raised?
The purchaser’s survey raised concerns including:
- apparent dipping to the roof;
- cracked or damaged roof coverings;
- possible defective flashings;
- possible ongoing water ingress;
- decayed or altered roof timbers;
- suspected woodworm;
- possible damp-related timber decay;
- elevated moisture readings internally; and
- possible leaks around the glazed kitchen roof.
On the strength of those concerns, a much wider programme of repair and replacement was proposed.
Our role was not to dismiss those concerns, but to inspect each point independently and establish whether the available evidence supported the scale of works being suggested.
The Roof
The roof showed age-related weathering and some light dishing, but in our opinion this was relatively conventional for a property of its age.
The principal defect identified was a slipped roof tile, together with a localised tear to the roofing felt. These were limited defects and did not, in our view, justify stripping and recovering the entire roof.
The roof void was otherwise generally dry, with no evidence of widespread active leakage.
This was important because the difference between a localised repair and a full roof replacement had a significant effect on the overall cost position.
Damp and Water Ingress
The purchaser’s survey also raised concerns about damp staining and possible active water ingress, particularly around the kitchen roof.
During our inspection, moisture readings in this area were approximately 10%, which would generally be considered relatively dry. The staining was more consistent with condensation than active water penetration, with limited mechanical extraction likely contributing to the issue.
A separate localised area of elevated moisture was identified around a chimney breast, but comparable elevated readings were not found elsewhere across the ground, first and second floors.
The distinction was important. There was a defect to address, but the evidence did not support the suggestion of widespread damp problems throughout the property.
Woodworm and Timber Concerns
Possible woodworm had also been raised.
During our inspection, we were unable to identify clear evidence of active wood-boring insect infestation.
A photograph previously relied upon as evidence of “pests” appeared, on closer inspection, to be more consistent with timber deterioration caused by prolonged moisture exposure in the basement rather than active infestation.
That distinction matters because timber decay and wood-boring insect infestation require very different approaches to repair.
The Difference in Cost
Following our independent inspection, we considered the necessary remedial works to be far more limited.
Our broad allowance for the defects identified was approximately £1,200 to £3,000, compared with the purchaser’s proposed remedial package of approximately £75,000.
That difference had an obvious impact on the negotiation.
By providing the seller with an independent, evidence-based assessment, we were able to give them a clearer basis from which to respond to the purchaser’s proposed price reduction and avoid accepting a substantial deduction based on works that, in our opinion, were not proportionate to the defects actually identified.
Why a Second Opinion Can Matter
A survey should identify defects and help a client understand risk.
However, where the findings of a survey begin to influence a transaction by tens of thousands of pounds, it can be sensible to obtain a second opinion before accepting that the proposed scope of work is justified.
A Defect Analysis Report can help establish:
- whether the defect is actually present;
- how serious it is;
- whether the proposed repair is proportionate;
- whether further investigation is genuinely required; and
- whether the estimated costs are consistent with the condition observed.
For a seller, this can be particularly valuable where a purchaser seeks a substantial reduction following their survey.
For a purchaser, it can equally provide clarity where a survey identifies something significant and they want to understand the true extent of the risk before proceeding.
At Stokemont, our approach is straightforward: inspect the defect, test the evidence and advise on the proportionate solution.
If a survey has raised significant concerns about a property, or a buyer is seeking to renegotiate on the basis of their survey findings, our Instant Quote service allows you to obtain pricing quickly and arrange an independent Defect Analysis inspection.
Get your Instant Quote today and arrange a Defect Analysis inspection with Stokemont.
A second opinion can sometimes be the difference between accepting a reasonable repair cost and losing tens of thousands of pounds unnecessarily.
