Cut truss bottom chords, hidden defect?

[AG A]

Surprises yes, but since this is such a serious error in the load-bearing structure, there must be a limit somewhere, especially as the inspection did not note anything at all and this could only be discovered by sawing up a significant part of the floor in a room.

And it is a removed staircase, I have obtained drawings where the staircase is drawn in. One could say that this should be an indication of problems and should have been looked at before purchase, but that's kind of where the question lies, whether it's reasonable to assume that everything is done wrong when it looks OK externally during a visual inspection.

Considering that the floor was very shaky, it might be reasonable to think that it's poorly done. Just because a house is a bit old, you shouldn't expect the floor joists to be shaky.
But if they are shaky in old houses, it is almost exclusively due to old renovations.

 

[BSOD]

If a heavy moving box caused such sagging, I think you should be able to feel significant flex if you, for example, jumped on the floor.

I therefore believe that the fault could have been possible to detect before purchase with a thorough inspection.

In about 99 cases out of 100, hidden defect discussions end with the buyer having to bite the bullet and solve it themselves. Unfortunately, I believe this case also ends there.

 

[Anonymiserad 358496]

Of course, it's someone else's fault and responsibility to solve this. Surely you shouldn't have to conduct a thorough investigation of the wobbly floor from 1908 before you sign?

 

[Anonymiserad 358496]

Do you suggest taking this to the extreme and continuously reporting here?

 

[r3jonwah85]

That you have the opinion you do is one thing, but surely the room couldn’t have been unusable before? It sounds very strange if you wouldn't be able to have normal things in there. That it sags and hangs is one thing, but to say it's unusable seems a bit of an exaggeration to me.

Unusable might be a bit too strong of a word on my part, normal usage might be a better description, for example, I wouldn't dare put my height-adjustable desk in this room as it was before the demolition began. But this is something an expert should really assess if/when a case is made of it.

The room was previously sparsely furnished for natural reasons since the house is 246+100 m2 with only two older people in the household, meaning nothing that would directly raise suspicion for further investigation. The inspector did point out sloping floors in a room on the lower level that we were prepared to address without issue (part with crawl space and rotten old beams, already replaced in the rest of the house).

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just putting forward my opinion to hear thoughts on the matter since hidden defects are complicated, and if it should fall under the scope of hidden defects, it would be foolish not to pursue the case.

 

[r3jonwah85]

Considering the floor was very shaky, it might be reasonable to believe that it is poorly constructed. Just because a house is a bit old, one should not expect the joists to be shaky. But if they are shaky in old houses, it is almost exclusively due to old renovations.

I might have expressed myself poorly; what I mean is that the joists were not as rigid as a concrete joist nor as a modern wooden joist, which is natural since I remember that the design load was about 1/3 of today's requirements with the corresponding deflection when the existing subfloor was laid (early 80s). It is quite obvious that approximately 175x175 beams with 1200 mm centers do not feel like a modern joist, and we fully understood this before purchase, but I would say it is difficult to jump around on the entire upper floor and gauge exactly how much the floor gives way and thereby find out that the trusses are not intact or correctly supported.

 

[r3jonwah85]

If a heavy moving box caused such sagging, I think one should be able to feel considerable flexing if, for example, jumping on the floor.

Therefore, I believe that the issue could have been possible to detect before purchase with a thorough inspection.

In about 99 out of 100 cases, hidden defect discussions end with the buyer having to bite the bullet and solve it themselves. Unfortunately, I think this case will end there as well.

This is not about single boxes but more about a load of approximately 50-75 kg/m2 since the boxes needed to land somewhere, but it is reasonable that this type of load will occur when furnishing with, for example, a height-adjustable desk of a more stable type.

Absolutely, I have that experience from reading previous posts too, and know that the buyer has an extensive duty to inspect, but this causes more trouble than was planned with space constraints and more that needs to be torn down, hence I am exploring the possibilities as it could not have been detected without intervention (I jumped around wildly during the viewing, but without measuring, it is difficult to feel/hear the difference between this fault and a joist dimensioned with an older/lower standard).

 

[Stefan1972]

But what do you imagine will happen if you place something heavy? That you'll fall through the floor?

 

[AG A]

I may have expressed myself poorly, what I mean is that the floor structure was not as rigid as a concrete floor structure and not like a modern wooden floor structure either, which is natural as I recall the design load was about 1/3 of today's requirements with corresponding deflection when the existing subfloor was laid (early 80s). It's quite obvious that beams around 175x175 with a center-to-center spacing of 1200 mm don't feel like a modern floor structure, and we fully understood this before purchase. However, I would say that it's difficult to jump around on the entire upper floor and accurately sense how much the floor gives way and thus find out that the roof trusses are not intact or correctly reinforced.

I understand you. But new things also come to light. Sloping floors on the ground floor, rotten beams, etc. Together, everything indicates that the house was in poor condition, where you can expect issues in many more places. Even the previous owners can give a hint about the house's maintenance over the last 30 years.

 

[r3jonwah85]

Of course, it's someone else's fault and responsibility to solve this. Surely, you shouldn't need to conduct a thorough investigation of the shaky floor from 1908 before you sign?

The satire is noted, but the joists have been reinforced and modernized in the 80s according to the seller, and the trusses were inspected by both the surveyor and me, these are about 175x175 with 1200 mm centers and are thus not expected to be as rigid as a modern joist, that the floor creaks a bit when jumping is probably to be expected in this case, however, it is another matter in my opinion (which may be incorrect) that parts of the joist are damaged and replaced by 45x45 studs.

 

[Conqvist]

You can always start the process of claiming a hidden defect. Based on how the seller and the insurance company then act, you can decide if it's worth pursuing further.

 

[r3jonwah85]

I understand you. But new things are also coming to light. Sloping floors on the ground floor, rotten beams, etc. Everything together indicates that the house was in poor condition, where one can expect faults in many more places. Even the previous owners can give a hint about the house's maintenance over the last 30 years.

However, the house is overall in very good condition, all lower floor beams have been replaced except in one room, this was also highlighted by the seller, and this was factored into the price, but I see your point.

 

[r3jonwah85]

But what do you imagine will happen if you put something heavy in? That you'll fall through the floor?

In this case, it has started to push down the ceiling below, causing a difference in floor level that makes it difficult to furnish, so you don't want to add more weight without addressing it first.

 

[rotbackarn]

The cut beams are visible in the first picture with the partition wall still in place. I can't see that these couldn't have been restored to load-bearing capacity without further demolition.
The fact that you want to make the floor structure even better than the original isn't a cost you can include in a hidden defect claim.
The beams have about 1.5 m up to the attic wall - it's hard to see that it can't be spliced securely over that distance. Steel can also be used if the space is tight.

 

[r3jonwah85]

The cut beams are visible in the first picture with the partition wall still in place. I can't see that these couldn't have been restored to bearing capacity without additional demolition. Wanting to make the floor structure even better than originally is not a cost you can count as a requirement for a hidden defect. The beams have about 1.5 meters to the knee wall - hard to see that it can't be spliced securely at that stretch. Steel can also be used if space is tight.

This was my initial thought as well, but considering the level difference between the various parts of the subframe (and the one pointing upward is hard to draw down since it's a lever from the other side of the house), the new beams must reach all the way to the main wall and be anchored rather than just splicing the existing beam as this would need to be planed down at the highest point and thus becomes lower.