Left with a bad smell

First, would this problem have been obvious or 明らかな to a reasonably competent surveyor and should it have been checked as a 事柄 of course? The 王室の 会・原則 of Charted Surveyors could help here.

Secondly, would the type of 調査する you paid for cover this 問題／発行する? If it is （疑いを）晴らす that the surveyor should have 選ぶd this up and didn't, you may have a 事例／患者.

As for the vendor, this problem should have been 明らかな to them. If they were 適切な asked for （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） in relation to drainage and sewerage and any 可能性のある problems in 尊敬（する）・点 of the 所有物／資産／財産 in the pre-契約 enquiries, and failed to 公表する／暴露する this, then 供給するd you can show that they were 適切に asked and failed to 供給する a truthful 返答, you have a 可能性のある （人命などを）奪う，主張する.

The same could 適用する to the 広い地所 スパイ／執行官s if they knew of this problem and failed to tell you. The vendor is the one who should have had actual knowledge of the problem and should have 明らかにする／漏らすd it either in replies to the pre-契約 enquiries, or on the 販売人s 所有物／資産／財産 （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） Form which they are 要求するd to 完全にする 事前の to 交流 of 契約s.

Get your conveyancing solicitor's とじ込み／提出する and see what （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） was 公表する／暴露するd 事前の to 交流ing 契約s. You should also get 独立した・無所属 確定／確認 that the problem was 明らかな before you bought the 所有物／資産／財産.

You will need to 協議する solicitors about any appropriate 法廷，裁判所 活動／戦闘 against the vendor, 広い地所 スパイ／執行官s or surveyor (although those last two may have a number of 'get out' 条項s in any 協定s made with them).

Faraz Baber of RICS 追加するs: Much depends on whether the 調査する was a 十分な 構造上の 調査する or a mortgage valuation and if it was 行為／行うd by a 借り切る／憲章d surveyor. RICS would be happy to talk to you and advise you what steps to take. Call 0870 333 1600.