Hello 
Apologies in advance that my first post here is a long one.
I'm going to view a house on Saturday. It is 200 years old and at the end of a terrace.
When I phoned the estate agent he more or less tried to put me off viewing it (I haven't yet decided if he wants it for himself!). He said that up until recently a sale had been going through and an elderly lady was going to buy it, but when she got the survey back there were issues with the roof and she decided it was unmanageable and pulled out of the sale. To avoid this happening again, he has actually faxed me four pages of the survey which cover the roof issues, so that I could make the decision about whether to still view it or not.
I am viewing it, but if I like it, I need to know how much of an issue these roof problems are, and how much they might cost to put right to assist with deciding on my offer. Obviously if things progressed I would get my own survey done. I don't expect a 200 year old house to be perfect, but I need to know if there are major/costly issues which really should be rectified for safety's sake.
It's worth saying that the current owners only bought the house in 2006, so they presumably managed to get a mortgage on the property despite these issues.
Relevant extracts, I think, are as follows...
The main roof is a twin pitched and hipped timber frame structure with slopes clad in interlocking composite tiles. The original covering was most likely slate...the new composite tiles of the Stonewold type will be considerably heavier and there has been some deflection of the supporting timbers which gives rise to significant undulation in the surface of the roof. There has been an attempt to provide improved support to the underside with strutting and additional purlins although the benefit is questionable as some of the struts bear down onto an internal wall which does not have any load bearing capability. Unfortunately we cannot guarantee that further movement will not take place and recommend assessment by a structural engineer of the sub structure to the roof to determine whether further reinforcement is necessary. There should not be any attempt to jack the roof back into its original line. (There is a photo but it does not reproduce on the scan I've been sent)
In the roof void... the purlins are considerably undersized and have deflected over the years. Newer purlins at the lower level are not particularly effective as they are supported on a hip rafter and are cantilevered over a single strut. This strut could well be bearing down onto timbers or the internal partition which may not have been designed for this purpose. We strongly recommend a structural engineer...etc as above.
As with any hipped an pitched roof, at least one of the slopes of the roof cannot be triangulated in the correct manner. Where this has happened we recommend that steel straps should be introduced fixed to the rafters to run over at least 3 ceiling joists and those should be positioned at every 4th rafter.
Some daylight was visible from within the roof void where felt has been split to allow for repairs. This should be monitored and it may be necessary to carry out repairs to prevent rainwater penetration in the future.
There are no hip irons at the base of the hip tiles. This is an oversight by the original roofing contractor and the lower hip tiles should be removed and hip irons fixed firmly into position. The lower hip tiles can then be reinstated and cemented into position.
The chimney flues converge within the roof void. It was noted that the chimney on the east side has been removed to below the level of the roof void. This brickwork, however, remains within the roof void and is haphazardly supported on timbers. We suggest a structural engineer...etc.
We have noted some flight holes following beetle infestation within timbers. Whilst not apparently to any significant extent to the timbers which could be seen, of course there are a large number of timbers around the property which are concealed from view and it is very likely that they have been infested to a similar or greater extent. For this reason we recommend that if there is no guarantee in place, the properry should be inspected and treated.
Finally... it mentions asbestos cement undercloaking in a couple of places. I thought that was dangerous?
Should I just avoid this place, or would spending some money sort it out and be worthwhile doing? Or, are the issues not as bad as the survey suggests. After all, the vendors have lived there for over four years, and are only selling because of divorce.
Thank you so much to anyone who has read this far. I'd be really interested in your thoughts.
Thanks!
Apologies in advance that my first post here is a long one. I'm going to view a house on Saturday. It is 200 years old and at the end of a terrace.
When I phoned the estate agent he more or less tried to put me off viewing it (I haven't yet decided if he wants it for himself!). He said that up until recently a sale had been going through and an elderly lady was going to buy it, but when she got the survey back there were issues with the roof and she decided it was unmanageable and pulled out of the sale. To avoid this happening again, he has actually faxed me four pages of the survey which cover the roof issues, so that I could make the decision about whether to still view it or not.
I am viewing it, but if I like it, I need to know how much of an issue these roof problems are, and how much they might cost to put right to assist with deciding on my offer. Obviously if things progressed I would get my own survey done. I don't expect a 200 year old house to be perfect, but I need to know if there are major/costly issues which really should be rectified for safety's sake.
It's worth saying that the current owners only bought the house in 2006, so they presumably managed to get a mortgage on the property despite these issues.
Relevant extracts, I think, are as follows...
The main roof is a twin pitched and hipped timber frame structure with slopes clad in interlocking composite tiles. The original covering was most likely slate...the new composite tiles of the Stonewold type will be considerably heavier and there has been some deflection of the supporting timbers which gives rise to significant undulation in the surface of the roof. There has been an attempt to provide improved support to the underside with strutting and additional purlins although the benefit is questionable as some of the struts bear down onto an internal wall which does not have any load bearing capability. Unfortunately we cannot guarantee that further movement will not take place and recommend assessment by a structural engineer of the sub structure to the roof to determine whether further reinforcement is necessary. There should not be any attempt to jack the roof back into its original line. (There is a photo but it does not reproduce on the scan I've been sent)
In the roof void... the purlins are considerably undersized and have deflected over the years. Newer purlins at the lower level are not particularly effective as they are supported on a hip rafter and are cantilevered over a single strut. This strut could well be bearing down onto timbers or the internal partition which may not have been designed for this purpose. We strongly recommend a structural engineer...etc as above.
As with any hipped an pitched roof, at least one of the slopes of the roof cannot be triangulated in the correct manner. Where this has happened we recommend that steel straps should be introduced fixed to the rafters to run over at least 3 ceiling joists and those should be positioned at every 4th rafter.
Some daylight was visible from within the roof void where felt has been split to allow for repairs. This should be monitored and it may be necessary to carry out repairs to prevent rainwater penetration in the future.
There are no hip irons at the base of the hip tiles. This is an oversight by the original roofing contractor and the lower hip tiles should be removed and hip irons fixed firmly into position. The lower hip tiles can then be reinstated and cemented into position.
The chimney flues converge within the roof void. It was noted that the chimney on the east side has been removed to below the level of the roof void. This brickwork, however, remains within the roof void and is haphazardly supported on timbers. We suggest a structural engineer...etc.
We have noted some flight holes following beetle infestation within timbers. Whilst not apparently to any significant extent to the timbers which could be seen, of course there are a large number of timbers around the property which are concealed from view and it is very likely that they have been infested to a similar or greater extent. For this reason we recommend that if there is no guarantee in place, the properry should be inspected and treated.
Finally... it mentions asbestos cement undercloaking in a couple of places. I thought that was dangerous?
Should I just avoid this place, or would spending some money sort it out and be worthwhile doing? Or, are the issues not as bad as the survey suggests. After all, the vendors have lived there for over four years, and are only selling because of divorce.
Thank you so much to anyone who has read this far. I'd be really interested in your thoughts.
Thanks!
