We're in the process of buying a house in England for £415k and have just had our Level 3 survey back. I'm trying to work out whether we're being overly cautious or whether this is something you'd renegotiate over.
The property had historic subsidence around 30 years ago which was reportedly corrected by underpinning.
The surveyor found cracking to the front, rear and side render, an internal window reveal and the kitchen threshold. He said each crack individually could be explained by normal movement, but taken together with the history of underpinning, he wasn't prepared to dismiss it based on a visual inspection alone. He's recommended obtaining all structural engineer reports, Building Control approvals, guarantees and insurance documentation relating to the underpinning before proceeding.
Separately, there are alterations including a two storey extension, roof alterations, integral garage conversion, downstairs WC and altered first floor landing. The surveyor has concerns that some of these works may not actually comply with Building Regulations, particularly the reduced headroom to the landing, the downstairs WC and the apparent lack of ventilation. He specifically advised that an indemnity policy is not the right solution if the works themselves aren't compliant, as it only covers missing paperwork, not defective works.
We're now asking the seller for all of the relevant documentation before deciding what to do next.
My questions are:
* If the seller can't produce the Building Regulations documentation or structural paperwork, would that be enough for you to renegotiate? We were thinking to drop to 380k?
* Would you proceed if they only offered indemnity insurance?
* Has anyone been in a similar position where documentation couldn't be produced? What happened?
* Does this sound like a situation where you'd continue, renegotiate, or walk away?
For context, the seller had their own RICS survey carried out before putting the property on the market, so they may already be aware of some of these issues.
Interested to hear what others would do.
Update:
Thanks for all the advice so far, it's been really helpful.
I've gone back through the TA6 and realised the sellers did disclose the underpinning. It was in the additional comments at the end rather than the main section.
They've said:
It was underpinned by the previous owner in 1991 due to historic mining related movement.
It only affected the garage side of the property.
They've lived there for 22 years with no further movement or insurance claims.
They also say they have the original underpinning plans and completion certificate.
I then spoke to the surveyor again, and interestingly he said the underpinning itself isn't really his main concern.
His bigger concern is the 2005 to 2006 extension. He believes parts of it may not comply with Building Regulations (reduced headroom and the downstairs WC), so he doesn't think an indemnity policy is the right solution. He wants to see the Building Regulations documentation before advising us to proceed.
We're now waiting to see what documents the sellers can actually produce.
Does this change anyone's opinion? Would you still proceed if the underpinning documentation exists, but the Building Regulations paperwork for the extension doesn't?