Survey says "poor workmanship" on recent loft/ extension roof, how bad does this actually look?

[Roostow]

Buying a Victorian house in London that had a loft conversion and rear extension done around 2019.

We've had a Level 3 survey and structurally the house seems broadly fine. There's no current evidence of leaks, and the surveyor says the main roof coverings are in adequate/good condition.

However, he's pretty critical of some of the newer roofing work and says: "The quality of the workmanship undertaken to the roof is poor. Recognised good practice has not been adhered to."

Main things he's flagged are:
overly long lead flashing, with some splitting poor detailing at the eaves, including loose lead being used to direct water into the gutter
split lead on the rear extension that's previously been patched with mastic
questionable flashing/detailing around rooflights and wall junctions
inadequate gutter support / some debris getting around the soffits and hoppers

Photos attached.

For anyone who knows roofing/leadwork, does this look like fairly localised poor workmanship that a decent roofer could rectify, or would you be worried about the installation more generally?

And very roughly, what would you expect the necessary remedial work + scaffolding to cost in London?

I'm getting roofers to inspect it before exchange, so mainly looking for a sense-check on whether the surveyor's wording matches what you can see in the photos.

 

[noseall]

The flat roof light flashings looks like a lash-up. Some of the weather detailing looks suspect especially the hidden gutter trapped behind the parapet. None of it looks easy to maintain. None of that lead looks easy to get at.

I'd run a mile just from being asked to have a look at it.

 

[^woody^]

A surveyor's subjective opinion should really be qualified to include what is actually wrong, the risk, and what would be better - or possible/practical.

"Poor" or "not in accordance with good practice" is subjective and does not state what the surveyor's version of "good practice" is, or why the work is poor. "Poor" or "wrong" does not mean bad, and does not mean that the projected life is less than it would otherwise be.

Its all about risk and whether the work is worth rectifying or altering.

- Do things need altering now or at some future date?

- Can a reduction in the price be had, or is the work "good enough" in a seller's mind to not offer anything?

One important thing is that it's a little pointless getting firms in to quote you on what they think needs doing. Everyone will have a different opinion, and most will love to maximise their income.

If you are asking firms to quote on remedial work, you really should be telling them what actually needs putting right, what standard you expect the end job to conform to and what it should look like. You tell them what you want, not ask them what they want to do.

For instance, a good job with some quality sealant and some flashing tape and some care will likely get you as much life as any other repair involving full dismantling. It may not be custom and practice, but it will be as good as anything else where more work involves more cost and more risk.