For mortgage of 140 y.o. building, is a structural survey legally necessary?

gigino

Just wondering if, in order to get a mortgage, a structural survey is necessary on a building over 140 years old? Is there a legal requirement? The bank already has a valuation. The buyer was working overseas when he bought the property and the bank just got a valuation. not a seperate proper structural survey. The buyer has returned to Ireland to retire and wants to renovate but serious structural issues have emerged. Given the age of the building, should the bank not have insisted on a structural survey to protect all involved? He is a relative but not on the internet so I thought I'd ask. He thinks if he asks his own solicitor in Ireland he may be fobbed off as the solicitor maybe should have gotten him to get a survey done.
Maybe someone has come across a similar case? Thanks in advance.

nuac

Common sense suggests that a 140 year old building should have had a structural survey before purchase.

However I dont think you can claim that it was a legal requirement for your lender to have such a survey. When the boom was on, lenders were not too fussy.

coylemj

Classic case of someone trying to offload blame for their own shortcomings on to someone else. We Irish are world champions at this game.

I got a loan for a car, it broke down after six months therefore it's the bank's fault for not insisting on a full AA inspection.

johnfás

If it was apparent from inspection (ie a structural survey) and the house is second hand then caveat emptor applies. Whilst it is silly for a bank not to insist on a survey it is not illegal at all.

gigino

nuac wrote: »

Common sense suggests that a 140 year old building should have had a structural survey before purchase.

However I dont think you can claim that it was a legal requirement for your lender to have such a survey.

I was just wondering as someone thought that there was a legal requirement to have a survey done if it was over 100 years old. If the bank had got a survey done, its valuation would have been much different and it would not have lent the money it did.

johnfás

gigino wrote: »

I was just wondering as someone thought that there was a legal requirement to have a survey done if it was over 100 years old. If the bank had got a survey done, its valuation would have been much different and it would not have lent the money it did.

Nor would the purchaser have bid... Which is the real point.

Milk & Honey

There is no legal requirement for the bank to have any survey at all done. There have been cases of solicitors being sued or not advising their client to have a survey done prior to purchasing. Anybody who buys any house of whatever age (including a new house) without having a proper survey done, is an idiot.

killers1

It's not a legal requirement, generally most lenders would ask to see a copy of a structural survey where the property is over 100 years old. This can often be overlooked by the bank by not paying close enough attention to the valuation report and missing the age of the building. Another factor may be that if the bank are lending at a low loan to value ratio they might have felt that the security even if it had some defects may still have had a resale value in excess of the funds being lent so felt it was still adequate security. Unfortunately the buyer has nobody to blame but himself here as the survey is done to protect him from purchasing a potentially defective property. The banks generally are happy to accept the word of their panel valuers that the property is adequate security for the amount of the loan being issued.

gigino

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Anybody who buys any house of whatever age (including a new house) without having a proper survey done, is an idiot.

Agreed, but the relative had this roamantic notion about returning to the auld sod to retire and thought everyone was as trustworthy as in his youth here.

To turn your quotation around, surely any bank who lent or lends money for a 140 year old over-valued property without having a survey done, is or was also very foolish? Maybe pain needs to be shared as they took a very foolish risk?

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There is no legal requirement for the bank to have any survey at all done.

That answers the original question anyway, I'll pass the info on, thank you.

BornToKill

gigino wrote: »

Agreed, but the relative had this roamantic notion about returning to the auld sod to retire and thought everyone was as trustworthy as in his youth here.

To turn your quotation around, surely any bank who lent or lends money for a 140 year old over-valued property without having a survey done, is or was also very foolish?

When it comes to money and property, people nowadays are no more or less trustworthy than they were fifty or five hundred years ago which is to say scarcely at all.

And yes, the banks lent foolishly. This, unfortunately, is hardly breaking news.

Victor

gigino wrote: »

To turn your quotation around, surely any bank who lent or lends money for a 140 year old over-valued property without having a survey done, is or was also very foolish? Maybe pain needs to be shared as they took a very foolish risk?

The banks are in a world of pain, maybe you friend should take some of it.

I realise your friend is hurting, but he seems to have done something very naive.

Carawaystick

gigino wrote: »

Agreed, but the relative had this roamantic notion about returning to the auld sod to retire and thought everyone was as trustworthy as in his youth here.

In a retiree's youth, people were kidnapped and raped en masse here, by less than trustworthy people.....

dats_right

I would be very surprised if your relative wasn't advised to have a structural survey carried out by his solicitor. For whatever reasons, usually cost savings or over eagerness, your relative purchased without a survey and he must face up to the consequences of that descision. It serves as a good warning to others considering not having a survey carried out.

coylemj

The bank may have been advised by the valuer that the site alone with a pile of rubble on it was at the time worth more than what they were proposing to lend in which case they wouldn't give a XXXX about the property so a structural survey wouldn't have been on their radar.

gigino

dats_right wrote: »

It serves as a good warning to others considering not having a survey carried out.

It serves as good warning to the banks too to value properties properly / make sure they are structurally sound. Serious structural issues have emerged so the bank does not have the security it thought it had, or ought to have had.