As I am currently in such a property, and it is another of those
"built like a brick outhouse" properties, would people recommend them?
(They are selling like hot cakes around here, as soon as they come on
the market.) Mine has solid walls throughout. It's got a driveway and
a decent-sized garden front and rear, in a quiet road. Just not where
I want to live any more. So perhaps a similar house in my preferred
area...? They don't look much from the outside, but there is not a
trace of MDF in them (other than the bits I've added, like the
worktop). They seem to be very solidly constructed and are excellent
value for money. I even like the slimline Crittall windows!
They are very variable. Sometimes they are excellent, sometimes they are
terrible, built with crumbly concrete, or those blocks made from straw.
Sounds like you have the former. Local knowledge, a good surveyor, or a good
eye for constructional detail are required with viewing.
I dug the top skim off, sealed it and self leveled it. I know it's a
"bodge" but it one I'm living with as I seriously cannot afford the
time/effort/hassle/money to dig out the downstairs floors to relay
them when and if I re-sell no one would question the under floor
Anyone had a buyers survey done where the carpets/flooring were even
touched nevermind lifted?
Tell me about it!
I bought a house and the surveyor said that
a) it had mains drainage and gas.
The top of the septic tank was clearly visible in the garden and there is
no gas within ten miles of here!
b) he said it was built in the 1930's.
It was built in 1960 ( and we had all the planning apps and plans to prove
c) he said an extension at the far end was wood framed and 1980's.
It was early 1970's and was brick and block construction.
It fact there was so little he got right I wondered if he had actually
surveyed the right house!.
The same company surveyed my 1950's ex council property too.
Similar catalogue of mistakes .
I had a b*gger of a job selling the house btw. It was poured concrete and
built like the proverbial ( rock hard) but because it was "non traditional
build" buyers had difficulty getting mortgages.
That coupled with the surveyors report which said wrongly that it had a
corroded frame. There was nothing wrong with the "frame" and to boot there
wasnt any evidence of there being anything wrong with its structure either!
Having said all of that. In my experience most of the council houses built
in the 1950s are very well built and my house was lovely. large rooms and
garden and in a good location ( one of the best in town).
It was a good all round genuine house with no construction or finish
Certainly a far better buy than those new houses you get now.
I don't think we have poured concrete council houses down here (home
counties). These houses on this estate are standard block/brick
construction and, like I said, they are very sought after because they
are considered to be so solidly built, roomy, and often have quite
large gardens. Plus, the stigma makes them an affordable buy for
first-timers when even a terraced house can command a higher price (go
figure!). I reckon when the Londoners were moved here after the war
they must have felt like they were entering some kind of Shangri-la.
So I have absolutely no worries about selling mine when the time
Might be worth a localised investigation before you go to the expense of
ripping up the whole floor. I had a concrete floor replaced in my
similarly aged house after knocking two rooms into one, and finding the
floor levels were different in each room. The original floors had a
"DPM" of bitumen between the base and top screed.
OTOH, even if it has none, if it's not damp, why bother to touch it?
Damp proof membranes have been used since the Victorians (slate, blue
brick, bitumen). They weren't stupid, even if they didn't have
convenient rolls of plastic stuff to use.
If it looks dry, then leave it alone. If it's dry, then chances are
there's a layer of bitumen poured underneath there somewhere.
Council houses sell well not because of the quality of construction,
but rather that you can get them relatively cheap and be able to make
a tidy profit at sale time.
Condensation and [lack of central] heating tend to be the main
concerns. However the BRE has noted a number of construction problems
with the majority of system built properties.
In the few thousand that we manage, lifestyle and location (ie north
facing main elevations or direction of prevelent winds) can have a
dramatic impact on internal comfort and problems.
Bracing to roof trusses, movement in raft foundations, movement in
concrete wall panels, and internal box gutters are other commen
On 10 Aug 2003 08:12:05 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org (dg) wrote:
Front is northish facing but hey who wants the sun shining into the tv
room all day. ;-) Much better onto the patio in the back...
Roof trusses are probably twice the thickness of new stuff, no panels
to move as it's a foot thick of solidish concrete, gutters are abestos
but hindsight is a handy thing. :-)
The last new house I was in I watched with some amusement as the owner
accidental fell into a wall while carrying a pc and punched a nice
hole through it (plasterboard)...
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.