Buildings Survey in error - where do I stand?

[Earl Kella]

We bought this house 2 years ago in order to renovate while we lived here. I have to admit I was a more or less beginner but gradually I have learnt more and more about building structure and general DIY.

Before we bought we had a full building survey done for £750 with the opinion that all major structural details would be found then.

To get to the point, I have now found out that our lounge/diner was created by removal of wall. Obvious you might say? This was not mentioned in our survey report. I am sure it was not a supporting wall for the 1st floor above, however I believe this wall once was supporting the breeze-block wall of the first floor which I think is giving some sort of support to the roof beams. This 1st floor wall is basically just resting on floor boards spanning 2 beams.

Where do I stand with this - surely a full buildings survey should point out any supporting structure that has been removed? This can be seen by going underneath the house and viewing the wall that would have been beneath this removed wall that now ends at the floor boards.

There is no building regs approval for this and I don't believe the previous owners removed this wall as it was done over 15 years ago.

Do I have a leg to stand on if I were to take this further? I'm thinkiing about getting a stuctural engineer in to estimate how much to put an RSJ across in order to comply with building regs, and trying to get the survey company to foot the bill...............(huge laugh from you all I reckon).

Any comments / experience appreciated.

Earl BTW this same survey claimed the house had suffered old subsidence - a fact now proved to be false and was actually badly worn pointing and slight brick slippage.

[EricP]

You don't say how old the property is?

It was standard construction in the 70's to put the upstairs walls on the floor boards. You use the term breeze block. Do you mean the Thermalite block? If so you may find the wall is only 3 inches thick and weighs almost nothing. None of my upstairs walls are over a downstairs wall, all are on floor boards.

[Andrew Gabriel]

Why do you believe this?

This doesn't make sense -- I suspect you are wrong. If the wall was a supporting wall, it would not have been built on top of the first floor. Indeed it would have been supporting the first floor.

That's the normal construction of suspended ground floors, so they can be constructed using less substantial (cheaper) beams.

Probably not required unless it was a supporting wall, and it doesn't sound to me like it was.

[Tony Bryer]

How old is the house?

When you say "this 1st floor wall is basically just resting on floor boards spanning 2 beams" do you mean that there is a floor joist either side of the upstairs wall and parallel to it and the boards run under the wall? If so I'd be much less worried that if the joists ran into the wall and the boards were parallel to it.

Also is there anything that gives concern: cracking etc. If not then I'd probably not worry too much, though you could get an engineer's opinion to be on the safe side.

[Andy Pandy]

My first little house, which I bought in 1967 was exactly like that, with the floor boards passing beneath the upstairs walls.

In fact we removed the downstairs dividing wall and the ceiling plasterboard bridged the gap, obviously in place before the wall was constructed.

Adny

[Derek *]

Yes, our new house was finished in 1976, I can remember visiting it during construction when the whole upstairs was just an open expanse of chipboard flooring.

The term "Paramount Boarding" rings a bell, 2 sheets of plasterboard seperated by a cellular paper core, like a cheap internal flush door. The electrician would shove a brush handle down from above to break all the cells to create a route for his wires to the lightswitches.

Googling for "Paramount Boarding" today only turns up links to the Paramount Boarding School.... :-(

DG

[<me9]

It's still available, I found details on the British Gypsum website recently, but it has changed it's name to something I can't remember ATM.

[Chipmunk]

Maybe "panelwall"? as seen at:

[Martin Angove]

My parents' 1967 house has the cellular plasterboard stuff resting on floorboards...

Our 1930s ex-council house had two cinderblock walls upstairs resting on (next to) nothing. One was built on top of and "in line" with the floorboards, though there was a non-structural wall partly underneath (the 1st floor wall kinked) which probably gave a little rigidity to the matter.

We removed the ground floor wall and put a concrete lintel in (mostly because the bath was to go directly above) and re-arranged the upstairs with no regard for supporting structures, using stud walls and Fermacell, built to partly brace the (really thin) loft joists.

The Building Inspector seemed perfectly happy :-)

Hwyl!

M.

[<me9]

[Earl Kella]

I don't see how this would help the structure - this (basement) wall does not support any joists but just runs parallel with them, stopping at the floor boards - I am sure the removed wall previously rested on this wall

Well I don't believe it supported the upstairs floor, but maybe it provided extra support to the 1st floor wall that would have rested on it?

[Earl Kella]

Many thanks for the interesting replies - however my main question remains unanswered:

Do I have any come back to the surveyors for failing to tell me the downstairs wall was removed?

Regards

Earl

[Andrew Gabriel]

No, unless it materially affects the structural intgrity, and nothing you've said so far indicates it does. You might ask the surveyor to come back and check -- mine was happy to make a couple of extra trips to the house to answer questions without charging (although that was within a week or two, not 2 years later).

[Earl Kella]

OK to elaborate, the reason I am concerned is that for some time now I have been worried about the support of the attic conversion that was done over 20 years ago and hence no building regs approval. The 'supporting' wall to the joists of this conversion is the 1st floor breeze block wall that is only resting on floorboards between 2 joists. If the aformentioned downstairs wall was still there then I can see that the roof joists would have been ultimately supported.

However without this wall there is nothing supporting the 1st floor wall and hence the attic conversion. Our survey report mentioned none of this and I believe a full buildings survey should be able to say if the attic conversion is structurally sound.

Maybe I am wrong in this assumption?

Regards

Earl

[Ian Stirling]

Has the breeze block wall cracked? If not, there has been no movement in between when it was put up and now. Which makes it fairly unlikely it's going to fall down tomorrow, though does not of course give a guarantee.

[bigcat]

So IIUC:

1. your loft floor is partially supported by the lightweight wall
2. This wall will be supported partly by the outer walls if its keyed into them, or otherwise well attached
3. And partly by the 1st floor floorboards.
4. Those boards are supported by the 1st floor joists

But Im no struc eng!

Dont discount the floorboard support though, 1" of solid wood over the whole length, with a board span of just over a foot between joists does give serious strength.

Whether its all compliant I wouldnt know. But masses of houses are sold yearly that arent, as long as the work was done long ago there is usually no complaint. Victorian houses rarely meet many modern BRs after all.

NT