Are Home Reports in Scotland working for you?

I have been helping out a friends daughter and partner who have bought privately, an ex council house in Aberdeen. In over 40 years in the electrical industry I have never witnessed anything as bad as the electrics in their new home. Nowhere in the home reports does it ask about DIY that had been done – despite a total of 39 switch sockets being visible through the house. This should have set off alarm bells with any competent experienced property Surveyor and saved them a probably £3-4K for a full rewire of the house.

We bought a house 3 years ago. We relied only on the home report. Nearly all of the problems that were identified after we moved in were missed by the surveyor (serious water penetration on all 3 chimneys, requiring one to be taken down and re-built; plus lots of serious ‘hidden’ water penetration (i.e. internal ceilings falling down after living there for a few months) and damage to internal walls that were temporarily covered with foil paper to achieve a sale.). This has cost us £20k to date. And we expect that replacing damaged internal walls to amount to another £10k this year.
In sum, we found the home report to be fully bogus. In fact, when the same surveyor had to come back to our house 2 years later because we were moving our mortgage (to re-value) he apologised and explained that he can’t see these things when there is furniture in a house. Hopeless.

My son and partner bought a property in Scotland recently. The decision to buy was based partly on a top graded, (1) Home Report. ( No major work required). Within weeks, water was found leaking into the attic and advice sought from independent roofing specialists who all graded the property as a ‘3’. ( Major work required immediately). An entire new roof was required.
The seller had stated on the Home Report that no major work had been done, turns out he had recently bodged the job himself.( Neighbour willing to act as witness). The original report, a ‘1’ time expired and was renewed six months later. It was identical and re- dated.
The surveyor had inspected the roof with binoculars. Photos of the roof taken by my son when the problem surfaced clearly show shoddy work yet this was from the same location the surveyor used his binoculars and yet failed to spot the problems.
To add insult to injury, the surveyors now admit the workmanship is lacking but suggest this job could have been carried out AFTER their original survey. They accept no responsibility.
This is in the hands of a solicitor but the HR appears to be not worth the paper it is written on.

As someone who has burned by a dishonest seller not disclosing issues in their PIF major issues including damp mould wet rot and leaking roof ( three in fact) I think the reintroduction of these should be compulsory in UK. Estate agents do not care about buyers and wull do the whole smoke and mirrors routine no better than bankers or traffic wardens

Bit of a long and ranty one.
I’m a first time buyer and looked at a house for the first time recently. I’ve a progressive illness so am not in a position to borrow more. Like everyone I need enough information to know I can afford to repair my house and that I can resell in future. If I had to move for more accessible housing and can’t resell, then I can’t live in my home, or buy another, or move into social housing. I was glad about HRs because if I had to pay for lots of surveys then I can’t afford to buy an accessible house. After viewing one house I don’t see HRs in this way.

The Home report flagged up minor roof repairs and damp in the walls beneath grading both a 2. That didn’t scare me off from having a look but knew it needs checked at 2nd view by my builder friend.
Surveyor writes twice in the report that the roof is otherwise fine, but then tucked away in the inspection procedures and “general remarks” is that he didn’t enter the attic and inspect the roof timbers. This despite knowing there is significant long term damp from the leaking roof. It seems bizarre that a house with a visible roof problem and internal damp beneath can be surveyed or even valued without inspection of roof timbers. How is he allowed to state that the roof is basically sound and call that a survey. There’s no redress if you miss the separate caveat. Agent told me this is normal practice to not inspect roof timbers but I’ve seen lots of HRs flag up rotten roof timbers. Agent said if I couldn’t take his personal assurances for there being no problem, I can call the surveyor. Why when we know he didn’t inspect them?

In the Japanese Knotweed section the surveyor says he didn’t look for it and assumes no problem. It takes 5 seconds to walk up to the hedge and see it growing in the next door vacant plot. It was regrowing after being removed earlier in summer, so if I’d viewed then I’d have missed it. Because he stated he chose not to inspect for it, a buyer who either didn’t think to look, wasn’t sure what it looks like, or didn’t view at the right time to see it would have no redress and insurance companies would not pay for any damage. There could have been constant eradication fees and it would keep coming back in from next door. Even when “eradicated” it comes back for years. It’s a C listed building with, I’d guess, poorish foundations and if you don’t protect it from Knotweed the council will do it and make you pay. I’d be unable to sell because buyers wouldn’t get a mortgage for a property with knotweed or history of it. If I was lucky and find a buyer with no mortgage, the price would be so low I couldn’t buy another house. I don’t know if the surveyor saw it, or genuinely chose to not look so as to not take on any liability. Either is not OK. So it sounds like if there’s knotweed in your area, you need a surveyor that you are paying.

HR said small improvements needed to leccy and graded it 2. It has bare wires and needs rewiring.

HR said no problem with flooring but hadn’t lifted the floor coverings. The bare cement floor had a hole 2 foot wide and 6 inches deep that’s been patched and repatched.

Also no certificates for anything and no tests done on chimneys, drains etc.

Surveyor valued the property without seeing documentation on planning permission for recent extension to a listed building, and there is no record of it on the council site. That’s a meaningless valuation. To tear down and rebuild in the original appearance could cost most of the asking price and also reduce size and value of the property. Your own solicitor would check this but only after an offer has been conditionally accepted, and so you have to pay your solicitor hundreds to find out if the property has a negative value. A HR and valuation should not be allowed without this basic info.

I stayed more or less polite but the agent thought I buttoned up the back and faked offence at me suggesting his verbal assurances on the roof timbers and the high quality of the survey were not enough to base an offer on.

If we add in knotweed nightmares, putting right the visible and likely problems flagged up in the survey, plus putting right the definite and potential problems the survey didn’t mention or was misleading or inadequate on, could cost a lot more than the asking price of the property and even if all this work was done resale could be difficult or impossible and then only at far lower than the current valuation. I know it would be my solicitors job to tell me I needed to get an independent survey done on this house but even if they didn’t, given how these professions are regulated, I would still have no chance of redress on some of these issues, and only a chance of a redress on some issues if I had the money to sue. Most people don’t. I’d be relieved if someone could tell me I’ve got all that wrong. I’m new to this so it’s likely I’ll have misunderstood some of the procedures.

If this level of competency and honesty is normal, there needs to be changes to HRs and then the Scottish government needs to create an independent auditing system that has the right to give out temporary bans, re education, or disbar surveyors from doing HRs. (professions can’t self regulate and the ombudsman is unfit for purpose.) This wouldn’t solve all bias problems and would increase cost, but it would be a start.

On this one experience I’d say HRs, as they’re done now, can’t be treated as an adequate initial valuation let alone a survey. I’ve found the comments above really useful. Thanks to all. When I find the one I really want, I’ll get my own survey done.

I think the system is right it should be a mandatory thing for sellers to get a proper survey done before selling but the home report is not a proper survey.
I have just bought a house, home report states that it couldn’t check under the floors as fitted carpets did not allow access. The hatch in my new house is not covered by anything. I noticed this also in the house I sold same wording but again not true hatch was easily accessible.

I now could have a very large bill for wet rot damage, I realise that I should have paid for a timber survey but nothing in the home report to suggest I needed to, house seemed in good condition. My fault, but my specialist now is saying even if the home report surveyor had looked or smelled under the hatch he would have noticed it. Not sure if I have any come back, the questionnaire also asked if any work had been done and it was not disclosed even though work is evident. Again not sure how much of a come back I have with it.

The report doesn’t in its present form protect home buyers.

I put my cottage up for sale about 4 months ago surveyor came out. he was there around 1 hour.head and shoulders into attic didn’t check beneath floors ,I had a heat recovery system fitted had to explain to him what this was. when I bought this house 5 years ago the house had rotten floors ,broken sewerage pipes faulty boiler rotten ceiling structure etc e.t.c none of this was on the home report then ,home reports are superficial and not worth the money /denis

In its present form the Home Report is of little use to anyone- except surveyors.

Sellers are pressured into paying over and over again to update the report.
Buyers are not getting a detailed survey that flags all issues, they are getting a very lazy look dont touch kind of survey.
Even the banks seem not to be impressed often insisting on more surveys or updated reports before they are even due.