# Survey by an Architect? & Before making an offer?



## Riverman (9 Dec 2009)

A couple of (slightly) related questions...

1. I'm looking to buy a house and I've had a couple of personal recommendations for surveyors - except that both are architects. Does this matter? Wouldn't a surveyor have more relevant qualifications & experience, & be more likely to do a better job? And have the right indemnity insurance / be easier to sue if they didn't!

2. One of the "recommenders" is also suggesting that if I decide to bid on an "older" house, I should get a survey done before I put in my first offer. The idea is that I'll be able to take any problems into account when deciding how much I'm willing to pay. But I think it makes me look as though (a) I can afford to throw money around, and/or (b) I'm completely focused on that particular house - both of which will be of no help to me when it comes to negotiations.

Any thoughts welcome. Thanks.


----------



## WaterSprite (9 Dec 2009)

There's really no point in doing a survey before you've put an offer in.  Who knows if the offer will be accepted?  And a good survey can cost €600, which is a lot to spend if you haven't even gone sale agreed.  You are not bound once you put in an offer and go sale agreed; you can lower the price if the survey shows up problems that weren't to be expected (but expect some problems with old houses) - there are many post on this topic if you do a search.

On (1), I would tend to go with a proper surveryor, rather than an architect.  And I would stop listening to that recommender you mention.


----------



## onq (9 Dec 2009)

Riverman said:


> A couple of (slightly) related questions...
> 
> 1. I'm looking to buy a house and I've had a couple of personal recommendations for surveyors - except that both are architects. Does this matter? Wouldn't a surveyor have more relevant qualifications & experience, & be more likely to do a better job? And have the right indemnity insurance / be easier to sue if they didn't!



Architects are competent to comment on all matters in  relation to buildings.
Depending on the kind of house and the experience of the architect you retain, an architect may be in a better position to assess the building than a surveyor whose experience lies in commercial work.
That having been said the corollary can be true also. So it depends on the person you get to do the work.



> 2. One of the "recommenders" is also suggesting that if I decide to bid on an "older" house, I should get a survey done before I put in my first offer. The idea is that I'll be able to take any problems into account when deciding how much I'm willing to pay. But I think it makes me look as though (a) I can afford to throw money around, and/or (b) I'm completely focused on that particular house - both of which will be of no help to me when it comes to negotiations.
> 
> Any thoughts welcome. Thanks.



This is absolutely good advice.
I think you'll give a good impression.
Intelligent enough to call in the experts.
Foresighted enough to know when to do it.

Choose an architect with conservation experience.
You could sink a quarter of a million into a Georgian building and not notice it.

There are several notable firms including 

David Slattery in Clonskeagh [he of The Custom House renovation fame]
Buchan Kane and Foley
Bluett and O'Donoghue, etc., 
That's not to mention the plethora of architects currently studying the RIAI Conservation Course.

As for people who claim Surveyors can do the job as well or better, well...
Let me put it this way - I know of several Conservation Architects, but no Conservation Surveyors.
[although like those little wood boring beetles I expect they'll appear out of the woodwork after I post this...]



ONQ.

[broken link removed]


----------



## WaterSprite (9 Dec 2009)

I have to say that I think it's absolutely bananas to get a survey done before you've even put an offer in on a house.  OP, I'd hold out for some more opinions on this as I believe I won't be alone in that thinking.


----------



## Riverman (9 Dec 2009)

Thanks both of you. I think I'd better step in here and clarify something.

Sorry ONQ, what I meant by "older" was not Georgian or the like, but ordinary mid-20th century suburban houses as opposed to more recent estate builds.


----------



## onq (9 Dec 2009)

You may not be alone WaterSprite, but I don't think you're right.

We need to get out of the "spend as little as possible mentality".
Let's just think about what the OP is actually doing for a second.
A period property in a good location will still fetch well over a million Euro.
So the OP is about to contemplate making a very big investment in property.

Even if the OP pays €1,000 for a detailed survey with photos, that's still only 0.1% of the purchase price.
It makes little sense that someone would try to take professional advice AFTER making an offer of one million Euro.
The whole point of commissioning the survey report is so that he will be better informed regarding what he should bid.

Remember, estate agents operate on fees of around 0.75-1.5% and offer no assurances.
Anyway all this may be moot - the vendor may be unwilling to allow a survey be carried out.
Mind you any refusal in and of itself may allow a potential bidder to infer the condition of the property. 

FWIW

ONQ.


----------



## sadie (10 Dec 2009)

I've had some structural surveys done by Engineers in the past, and I have to say I was very disappointed with them. Two or three very widely spaced pages of statements that basically said house was built from blocks and timber, water connected to mains, drains connected to mains sewage. 

It told us nothing about if the walls were drylined or not, if we needed more insulation in the attic, if a new boiler is needed etc. A basic structural survey won't comment on planning law issues and they don't lift manhole covers, or test the heating.

On one house we had surveyed, there was a garage conversion and the engineer didn't even bring to our attention the fact that because there was a window in it at the front, it needed planning permission. We only found out that later on and the deal fell through because the sellers had to go and apply for retention taking 3 more months.

If the house is old, if you have a friend who's a builder I'd bring them along to take a look from their point of view.


----------



## WaterSprite (10 Dec 2009)

onq said:


> We need to get out of the "spend as little as possible mentality".
> Let's just think about what the OP is actually doing for a second.
> A period property in a good location will still fetch well over a million Euro.
> So the OP is about to contemplate making a very big investment in property.



I am definitely not of that mentality when it comes to surveys and I resent that implication a little. So please don't include "me" in your "we" above, just like you probably don't include yourself. I would not recommend getting a "cheap" survey, particularly if OP is talking about a Georgian-type house (which s/he is not, as it turns out).  I'm all for spending money for quality, but not for wasting money for little or no advantage.

Unless OP is going to offer the asking price and is confident of being accepted, I still think it's absolute madness to do a survey before offer. One can adjust the offer after the survey, or withdraw it, so I don't see any advantage in doing a survey beforehand.

For example, on the Clonliffe Road not so long ago, there were three houses that were just about the same (within 10 doors of each other, same sizes, same aspect, all needed significant refurbishment) that, if OP liked that sort of thing, could have bid on. All three had wildly different guide prices - from €550k to €750k. Should s/he have gotten three surveys done before even knowing for sure how flexible the guide price was? 



onq said:


> It makes little sense that someone would try to take professional advice AFTER making an offer of one million Euro.



Yes, *if* that offer of one million Euro was binding and meant you had to spend that money regardless of the outcome of the survey. This is not the case. In such an unpredictable market, what houses does OP survey? Ones with a guide price within his/her budget? Ones within 25% of budget? Or ones within 40% of budget? 



onq said:


> The whole point of commissioning the survey report is so that he will be better informed regarding what he should bid.



And the whole point of getting a survey done after a bid means that (i) you know that your base bid has been accepted so you're not wasting your time and money and (ii) you can adjust your bid as a result of the survey.

@Sadie, I got a surveyor to do my survey on an old house and got advice on all of those things you mentioned. The surveyor brought all relevant things to my attention, including things which he thought should be done from a mere aesthetic point of view (all the way down to pointing out kinks in the front railings).


----------



## Riverman (12 Dec 2009)

sadie said:


> I've had some structural surveys done by Engineers in the past, and I have to say I was very disappointed with them.



Thanks Sadie, but is an Engineer the same as a Surveyor or an Architect? Or different from both?



sadie said:


> A basic structural survey won't comment on planning law issues and they don't lift manhole covers, or test the heating.



I've heard the phrase "full structural survey" used. Is there a recognised distinction between this and a "basic structural survey" or are they the same thing? (as above, with reference to run-of-the-mill C20 suburban houses).


----------



## onq (12 Dec 2009)

Riverman said:


> Thanks Sadie, but is an Engineer the same as a Surveyor or an Architect? Or different from both?



I'll jump in here again if I may because Sadie's experience is precisely why I advise people to get an architect and not an engineer. Engineers deal with and are trained to deal with specific areas of knowledge, often performance based, in terms of structure and services.

The detail of how a performs in terms of its building contruction, flashing details, insulation details, ventilations details - they seldom even refer ot these unless there is a consequential problem for their areas of expertise, i.e. spalling of the face of a structural wall due to persistent water penetration casused by a defective parapet gutter.



> I've heard the phrase "full structural survey" used. Is there a recognised distinction between this and a "basic structural survey" or are they the same thing? (as above, with reference to run-of-the-mill C20 suburban houses).


The important word in both cases is "structural".
Here is the link to the Technical Guidacne Documents for the Building Regulations on the DOEHLG website: http://www.environ.ie/en/TGD/
Part A deals with Structure.
There are 11 others which may not be addressed in a Structural Survey.
To be fair, once the building is structurally sound you have something you can work with over time, but let's face it unless the outbreak is severe, it can be structurally sound yet still require a lot of the timbering replaced due to dry or wet rot, or require the windows replaced, or as Sadie discovered, there could be planning compliance issues which need to be addressed.
None of the above may even be discovered by a structural survey unless opening up work is carried out.
They are are usually only done when cracking is discovered.
All that having been said, structure is the most basic of building elements and will tend to cost a lot to remedy - it just falls far short of being ALL the building elements.

ONQ

[broken link removed]


----------



## onq (12 Dec 2009)

sadie said:


> I've had some structural surveys done by Engineers in the past, and I have to say I was very disappointed with them. Two or three very widely spaced pages of statements that basically said house was built from blocks and timber, water connected to mains, drains connected to mains sewage.
> 
> It told us nothing about if the walls were drylined or not, if we needed more insulation in the attic, if a new boiler is needed etc. A basic structural survey won't comment on planning law issues and they don't lift manhole covers, or test the heating.
> 
> ...



Sadie,

I'm sorry to hear about your experience.

The problem with many engineers is that planning issues and weathering details/ interior work is not their forté, as they deal with major structural or services matters depending on their specific discipline.

Mechanical and electrical engineers seldom even look at domestic work except on larger more highly serviced properties.

Structural engineers are usually called in to domestic work only after the planning permission is obtained or a crack or settlement issue arises in the property after its built [look at the pyrite threads for example].

Architects tend to be in from the word go in terms of design and so are often retained to make the planning application, leading to a general expertise in planning law at this scale of operation.

Similarly, architects Opinions cover Planning specifically and Building Regulations as a whole , specifically - there are two separate documetns offere, one in respect of each separate branch of building-related law.

However, don't decry a survey that tells you that the house is built correctly - that's what your paying for after all, assuming it is.

The problem is that an engineers survey may not cover things like assessing the insualtion of the house, the condition of orof timbers or gutters, the likely sources of damp damage in a house of that type, the condition of the windows, doors and their hinges, and the compliance or otherwise of any extensions, attic or garage conversions and outbuildings with building regulations and the planning laws.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (12 Dec 2009)

WaterSprite said:


> <snip disclaimers and examples>
> 
> And the whole point of getting a survey done after a bid means that (i) you know that your base bid has been accepted so you're not wasting your time and money and (ii) you can adjust your bid as a result of the survey.
> 
> @Sadie, I got a surveyor to do my survey on an old house and got advice on all of those things you mentioned. The surveyor brought all relevant things to my attention, including things which he thought should be done from a mere aesthetic point of view (all the way down to pointing out kinks in the front railings).



WaterSprite, 

I accept osme of what you say, not all of it.

BTW I used the word "we" to avoid an acrimonious exchange, not to provoke on and I don't see the word "cheap" anywhere except in your post.

I hope we can progress this exchange in better humour as its the OP who potentially will benefit, not either of us and I don't intend to get into a peeing contest with you.

=================================

If the bid is subject to a survey being done then I agree with you, you can carry out the survey afterwards.

For some reason my clients seem to get involved in deals with non-returnable deposits and so I advise "survey first, bid later" because the survey costs a fraction of the deposit, never mind the asking proce.

If the house isn't a period property and a survey is all you require, then go right ahead and use a surveyor - they are trained to undertake surveys.

My experience of clients is that they want to know all the pitfalls even before they bid, because so much can happen at an auction, and my surveys usually include a note on the development potential or restrictions due to listing etc.

Normally such matters are beyond the scope of most surveyors, since they involve building design and an evaluation of the planning regulations and development plans.

Accordingly even a good surveyor may not include matters arising due to the extensions of the house or outbuildings or seomras for example, and yet still discharge his duties fully.

This isn't a put down of surveyors - many survey buildings as well or better than architects, certainly in terms of the comprehensive detail of their reporting.

Architects can, and should, zero in on the things that are outstanding in relation to planning, weathering, detailing, drainage and so on, and draw attention to particular snags in terms of finishes, fittings, etc.

In other words, a good general appraisal of the property, with recommendations of referrals to M&E consultants regarding the services and a Structural consultant in relation to structure and a Damp Specialist where all this is warranted.

This is the point I was trying to make.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (12 Dec 2009)

WaterSprite said:


> <snip disclaimers and examples>
> 
> And the whole point of getting a survey done after a bid means that (i) you know that your base bid has been accepted so you're not wasting your time and money and (ii) you can adjust your bid as a result of the survey.
> 
> @Sadie, I got a surveyor to do my survey on an old house and got advice on all of those things you mentioned. The surveyor brought all relevant things to my attention, including things which he thought should be done from a mere aesthetic point of view (all the way down to pointing out kinks in the front railings).



WaterSprite, 

I accept osme of what you say, not all of it.

BTW I used the word "we" to avoid an acrimonious exchange, not to provoke on and I don't see the word "cheap" anywhere except in your post.

I hope we can progress this exchange in better humour as its the OP who potentially will benefit, not either of us and I don't intend to get into a peeing contest with you.

=================================

If the bid is subject to a survey being done then I agree with you, you can carry out the survey afterwards.

For some reason my clients seem to get involved in deals with non-returnable deposits and so I advise "survey first, bid later" because the survey costs a fraction of the deposit, never mind the asking proce.

If the house isn't a period property and a survey is all you require, then go right ahead and use a surveyor - they are trained to undertake surveys.

My experience of clients is that they want to know all the pitfalls even before they bid, because so much can happen at an auction, and my surveys usually include a note on the development potential or restrictions due to listing etc.

Normally such matters are beyond the scope of most surveyors, since they involve building design and an evaluation of the planning regulations and development plans.

Accordingly even a good surveyor may not include matters arising due to the extensions of the house or outbuildings or seomras for example, and yet still discharge his duties fully.

This isn't a put down of surveyors - many survey buildings as well or better than architects, certainly in terms of the comprehensive detail of their reporting.

Architects can, and should, zero in on the things that are outstanding in relation to planning, weathering, detailing, drainage and so on, and draw attention to particular snags in terms of finishes, fittings, etc.

In other words, a good general appraisal of the property, with recommendations of referrals to M&E consultants regarding the services and a Structural consultant in relation to structure and a Damp Specialist where all this is warranted.

This is the point I was trying to make.

ONQ.


----------



## Riverman (23 Dec 2009)

Thanks everyone for your input and apologies for the delay in acknowledging it.

Sounds like we have agreement that for a normal private treaty sale (which this will be), it's fine to survey after offering/agreeing a price but before exchange of contracts.

I have to say I'm still a little confused about the terminology: architect/surveyor/engineeer, structural or other (presumably more comprehensive) survey, etc. But thanks ONQ for the reference to the building regulations - that will give me a framework to ask professionals of any designation what their services will cover.


----------



## DBK100 (9 Feb 2010)

Riverman said:


> ... it's fine to survey after offering/agreeing a price but before exchange of contracts.
> 
> I have to say I'm still a little confused about the terminology: architect/surveyor/engineeer, structural or other (presumably more comprehensive) survey, etc. But thanks ONQ for the reference to the building regulations - that will give me a framework to ask professionals of any designation what their services will cover.



Some further thoughts on the appropriate person to carry out a pre-purchase house survey, particularly for old, period or protected structures:

Old buildings and Protected Structures can be irreparably damaged and have their special character swept away, by the misguided actions of new purchasers. Mistakes usually come about because of ignorance, and the fault may be laid at the feet of professional advisers, builders, owners, or all three.

It is important that your Surveyor has specialist knowledge and experience in relation to Protected Structures. 

*You must ask whether they are experienced in this area. *
Issues of liability mean that a surveyor is likely to draw attention to every single apparent defect. It is important to remember that by no means all the points raised in a Surveyor's Report will be a cause for concern or will require immediate action. 

                 Protected or Period Buildings simply do not need to be brought up to modern standards with modern techniques, they require sensitive care and repair that is informed by the material and construction techniques originally used, with modern skills carefully employed where appropriate.

What you do not want to receive is a 25-page report who's author keeps recommending 'further investigation' or specialist reports by additional Third Parties.

A comprehensive and yet pragmatic survey is essential when contemplating purchase of a Protected Structure or Period Property and could draw your attention to defects that you didn't know existed or the seriousness of which you may not have appreciated. It will advise which aspects of the structure are typical to its age and should be retained, rather than stripped and “upgraded” with unsuitable modern methods and materials.

Alterations and repairs to a Protected Structure will inevitably cost more.  Often it can be very difficult or impossible to undertake some thermal performance upgrades such as external insulation or dry-lining, and other compensating measures will be required. Any upgrade measures have to be carefully considered against their impact on the building’s fabric. A full understanding of a Protected Structure is essential to ensure it's successful conservation, renovation or extension. 

A detailed survey prepared by an expert professional is invaluable as it should anticipate and advise you on these matters and not only the current state of the building as surveyed on the day.

DBK100
http://www.mesh.ie/


----------

