You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Our surveyor missed something on his survey which is now going to cost us several grand to sort out.
They came out to do a site visit last week and almost immediately spotted why they'd not noticed the issue.
We've not had to do anything like this in the past so anyone have any input on how the process works?
We are hoping to not have to go down the complaints route but just trying to get an idea on what may be involved should we have to.
I have two RICS surveyor friends, it’s happened to them a few times. Takes ages to sort out..
Yeah, I'm guessing it's not a quick process.
As I say, I hope we don't have to go down the complaints route and that their indemnity insurance can do something (if that's what they do).
A fiend of ours (WPC retired due to ill health) went through this and was given the brush-off but they didn't reckon with her determination to get redress, she ended up taking them to Court and got her settlement.
They all have PI insurance for this very kind of mistake.
RICS will only get involved if the complaint can't be settled between yourself and the firm. If you're not happy with the result, you'll then move to ADR (alternative dispute resolution)
Check your terms of engagement, which will have the complaints handling procedure included, and what method of ADR is to be included.
Anyone gone through the complaint procedure with a RICS surveyor?
My wife. Most days.
Todays complaint will be about taking the bins out. Probably.
Serious answer? ....He’s just a human being that makes mistakes like everyone else. Sort it out between yourselves / his firm.
The complaints procedure should be a remedy of last resort before you go to court
How much will it actually cost you to remedy the problem and would knowing about it have put you off buying the house?
In the end most disputes can be solved by sitting down amicably with a cup of coffee and discussing the matter. Exchanging letters will cost time and money and if it goes as far as lawyers the bastards will stretch it out for years and screw both parties for every penny.
So I would phone the manager and suggest a meeting. Keep it civil and informal and you'll save years of nervous energy and hassle.
We've had a meeting at the house which was amicable.
We don't want to go down the complaint route but will look at it if we need to.
Had we known of the issue it would have had an impact on us buying the house either by negotiating the price or pulling out.
It was the same reason we pulled out of a house a few months prior to buying this one.
What was the problem, if I may ask?
What was the problem, if I may ask?
Asbestos.
They commented on the report that they were pleased to say that there appears to be no asbestos in the soffits. That's exactly where it is and, when they looked at it again, said straight away that it looked like it had been painted.
Possibly a bit foolish of them to comment on the "lack of" asbestos. If they are Chartered Surveyors they will have professional indemnity insurance. If not done already l would be asking them to pay for removal of the asbestos and new soffites. Whether they want to refer this to their insurers or just pay up direct doesn't really matter to you, but if they don't play ball you can follow their formal complaints procedure (which, again, they should have).
Appears to be no asbestos.
vs
There is no asbestos.
Quote from the survey report:
" I am, however, fairly sure that, pleasingly, there appears to be no asbestos content in the
external soffit boards serving this dwelling."
That’s nowhere near the same as
”there’s no asbestos”
....which, as any first year apprentice surveyor knows, can only be established through testing and analysis.
I’m fairly sure that there appears to be no chance of a complaint being upheld by a court or indeed the RICS.
Ambiguous statements are the stock in trade of the valuation surveyor.
Ambiguous statements are the stock in trade of the valuation surveyor.
It wasn't a valuation survey, it was a RICS homebuyers survey.
But yet you based your perceived valuation of the house on it?
Standard Exclusion in the Home Buyer report Terms of Engagement I'm afraid.
Such reports are rarely of any value. IMO they are mis-sold most of the time. Stoner Ex-RICS, resigned in disgust.
Dangerous materials, contamination and environmental issues
The surveyor does not make any enquiries about contamination or other environmental dangers.
However, if the surveyor suspects a problem, he or she should recommend a further investigation.
The surveyor may assume that no harmful or dangerous materials have been used in the
construction, and does not have a duty to justify making this assumption. However, if the inspection
shows that these materials have been used, the surveyor must report this and ask for further
instructions.
The surveyor does not carry out an asbestos inspection and does not act as an asbestos inspector
when inspecting properties that may fall within the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. With flats,
the surveyor assumes that there is a ‘dutyholder’ (as defined in the regulations), and that in place are
an asbestos register and an effective management plan which does not present a significant risk to
health or need any immediate payment. The surveyor does not consult the dutyholder.
The service does not include an asbestos inspection that
may fall within the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012
(SI 2012/632). However, asbestos containing materials,
[b]if
suspected,[/b] should be reported and cross-referenced to
section J3 Risks to people.
If he doesnt suspect anything then he doenst have to do anything. And if painted then he can claim that there wasnt enough information to identify it as a building material. Although they are supposed to be on the look out for it everywhere that they might expect to see it.
” I am, however, fairly sure that, pleasingly, there appears to be no asbestos content in the
external soffit boards serving this dwelling.”
perchypanther
That’s nowhere near the same as”there’s no asbestos”
….which, as any first year apprentice surveyor knows, can only be established through testing and analysis.
I’m fairly sure that there appears to be no chance of a complaint being upheld by a court or indeed the RICS.
Ambiguous statements are the stock in trade of the valuation surveyor.
I disagree - the surveyor knows the homebuyer is relying on their expertise in determining whether or not to purchase the property, and has opined in such as way as to convey the impression that there is no asbestos in the soffits.
If the surveyor was unsure, he shouldn't have said "I am fairly sure". It's an assumption of responsibility over and above the standard duty of the reasonably competent surveyor.
If the surveyor was unsure, he shouldn’t have said “I am fairly sure”. It’s an assumption of responsibility over and above the standard duty of the reasonably competent surveyor.
Agreed...he shouldn’t have.
He instead chose to use an ambiguous sentence which is meaningless inthe context of the protective Standard Exclusion clauses as noted by Stoner above.
Unfortunately there is no real recourse in law or otherwise because the surveyor was a bit of a dick who can’t string a decent sentence together.
Perchy (ex RICS) resigned in poverty
Unless the asbestos is disturbed or degrading in some way why go to the expense of having it removed? Its a few years since I done Asbestos Awareness training but my recollection is that its only dangerous if its disturbed or degrading.
Just a personal thing but I'm not entirely sure I'd pull out of a house sale due to it....in fact living in a 70's Wimpey house I'd be surprised if my soffits didn't contain some.
The service does not include an asbestos inspection that
may fall within the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012
(SI 2012/632). However, asbestos containing materials,
if
suspected, should be reported and cross-referenced to
section J3 Risks to people.
That's what I read too which lead me to believe we may have a route for some recourse.
J3:
Worcestershire, and the Malvern area in particular, has been identified as being an area where
there is a potentially above average risk of adverse affect from Radon gas emissions. This is a
naturally occurring gas caused by a gradual breakdown of elements in bedrock and percolates
up through soil. It has been found to accumulate in some properties to levels where there is a
health hazard.
No mention of the possibility of asbestos even though the house was built in 1975. The guy who did the asbestos testing, once it had been discovered, said that he was very surprised that the surveyor did not recommend an asbestos survey purely based on the age of the house.
its only dangerous if its disturbed or degrading.
We're in the process off refurbing the house and it was discovered by the company who are replacing the fascia boards,soffits, guttering etc..
The RICS guys seem to cover themselves by saying things like " can't establish if the floors are dodgy as they are covered in carpet." Or "Unable to look in loft as it was full of insulation!"
One of the problems IMO is that many estate agents are also members of RICS. For some reason that seems to give confidence to buyers. When all it really means is they are sales people, interesting in selling the house regardless of the condition and there could be a conflict of interests. It always amuses me when the RICS give their view on house prices, they don't disclose how many of their members make serious cash from selling them.
Nothing against the RICS, I have a friend or two with the initials after their names, but they work for conservation groups!!
There a reason I'm not in the RICS
based around the completely crap people they allow in there
Agreed…he shouldn’t have.He instead chose to use an ambiguous sentence which is meaningless inthe context of the protective Standard Exclusion clauses as noted by Stoner above.
Unfortunately there is no real recourse in law or otherwise because the surveyor was a bit of a dick who can’t string a decent sentence together.
Perchy (ex RICS) resigned in poverty
Again, I disagree. The clause says that he doesn't make any enquiries, but by making the statement he did he arguably assumed a responsibility over and above what would be excluded by the clause (if, indeed, that clause itself would be considered reasonable by a court).
(English solicitor dealing with matters including professional negligence claims against surveyors)
You should take on stevied’s case then.
I wish you both the best of luck. Let us know how you get on.
Thanks for the input chaps.
They have until next weekend to respond so will update when I get a reply.
So he's come back and, basically, said that because it appears to have been painted over he did all he could do.
Having had a good look around (now that we know there's asbestos there) I've discovered an area of the soffits where there is not paint and you can see a mottled area.
This is a fairly large area that he should have spotted if he had a proper look.
is the material identifiable from the ground?
Difficult to tell as it was getting dark. Definitely a different colour and had a sparkle under the camera flash.
hmm Its fairly obvious that it is likely to be asbestos from that pic. But I'm used to seeing asbestos sofits.
I'm guessing a bog standard passage added to your survey without actually looking.
A better quality pic:
Was the ivy there when it was inspected or has that been removed since?
No, the ivy has not been touched. That had long been removed by the looks of it.
There's also this pic, taken when we had the 2nd viewing:
Unfortunately there is no real recourse in law or otherwise because the surveyor was a bit of a dick who can’t string a decent sentence together.
Well only the court can ultimately decide that. He was being paid to write a coherent report for a lay recipient so there is an argument that language which either intentionally or recklessly obfuscated the meaning, was negligent. He would have been better to have remained silent on the topic of asbestos. If it is apparent that the boards are painted he could have gone further and said "as the soffits have been painted, and they were examined only from ground level I cannot comment on the underlying materials". The question for the court is what would the reasonable recipient of the report have understood from "I am fairly sure" and "pleasingly".
Now how much extra does it cost to get asbestos soffits removed v's ordinary ones (bearing in mind the scaffolding, replacement costs etc were all happening anyway?). Probably less than the legal fees if it goes to court. So there is certainly a "real recourse [other than law]...". The risk for the OP is that they* want to make a point / validate their "get out clauses" and throw good lawyers at it, he loses (which is a possibility) and the court decide he should pay the costs. (*and they may mean their insurers).
It's just asbestos cement sheeting. There's no point in subjecting yourself to the stress and expense of a court case over that; just go to the dump, sign out the special poly sheet you need, remove the sheeting while wearing a mask and keeping everything damp then wrap it up and take it back to the dump.
THis is what the 3 samples came back with:
1 70AGR/1 BOARD NADIS INSULATING BOARD
2 70AGR/2 SOFFIT GABLE END-INSULATION BOARD AMOSITE/CHRYSOTILE INSULATING BOARD
3 70AGR/3 SOFFIT REAR-INSULATION BOARD AMOSITE/CHRYSOTILE INSULATING BOARD
It’s just asbestos cement sheeting. There’s no point in subjecting yourself to the stress and expense of a court case over that; just go to the dump, sign out the special poly sheet you need, remove the sheeting while wearing a mask and keeping everything damp then wrap it up and take it back to the dump.
Please don’t do this.
Take proper advice based on the test results and condition of the board.
That amount of AIB will almost certainly need a licensed contractor to remove and dispose.
I feel your pain.
We paid for the full structural survey on our house when we bought it back in 2010 as it was built in 1810.
Ambiguous wording in the survey has so far cost me £7,050 to put things right.
The complete new roof was a good laugh! The one put on in 2006 was a bodge job. If the surveyor had just tried to move one easily accessible slate he would have seen that the batten spacing was wrong for the size of tiles used. It would have taken him 30 seconds, 60 if you include the time to open the window and step out on to the roof below. Three roofers spotted it straight away. They showed me how to check too and it could have been done in less time than it took to type this paragraph.
We’re just sorting out a damp issue now that was missed also. The affected patch was only 8m long, so there must have been one massive chair blocking his access to it.
I swear the **** couldn’t have done a worse job if he had stayed in his car. I tried to see if there was any recourse, but the language used in the survey was so vague “assumed” “lack of access” etc that there was no come back on the guy.
Thankfully the house was built before asbestos was invented, becasue he would have missed that too.
you got a new roof and all that damp fixed for £7k? bargain...
Unfortunately there is no real recourse in law or otherwise because the surveyor was a bit of a dick who can’t string a decent sentence together.
Yianni v Edwin Evans and Sons (1981) innit?
Not sure if there's any more recent case law on it - just remember this from years ago...
you got a new roof and all that damp fixed for £7k? bargain…
£7k more than it should have cost.
you bought a 200 yr old house. <£1k a year maintenance sounds pretty cheap to me...
Not being funny but I can't ever imagine a surveyor moving a roof slate to look at the spacing of battens below.
The roof and the problem wall were only 4 years old at the time of survey as they had been part of a major rebuild in 2006.
If the guy had done his job, like we had paid him to, he would have spotted that:
A) The roof was incorrectly installed. The batten spacing from the original roof had been retained, but the new roof was made using reclaimed slates that were shorter than the originals, so there was insufficient support and overlap.
B) A wall in the area renovated in 2006 running across the middle of the house from one side to the other had been finished incorrectly as the new plaster was in direct contact with the ground. The house is 200 years old and has little in the way of foundations, so damp was wicking up the plaster. The other side of the wall remains largely untouched and is dry.
The surveyor said that as the work was new he assumed that it was OK based on a visual inspection without actually checking it. The word “visual” was his get out when questioned as it looked OK to him. A damp meter test or lifting one easily accessible tile would have shown the defects.
The wiring in the extension is a bag of shit too.
Edit - Wrightson, you could lift them up by about 4" as there was hardly any overlap. For £3k, or whatever it cost, I'd expect them to have a proper look especially as access is really easy. This wasn't a cheap do.
The only slight crumb of consolation is that the person who sold us our house bought one just up the road of a similar vintage and I guess that they used the same surveyor as he was recommended by the estate agent that handled both sales. They had skips outside their new house for months as it was discovered that the joists holding up the first floor all had to be replaced.
I’m £7k down, I bet they have lost a lot more.
Yes because I'm sure the previous owner had specifically requested that shoddy work was to be carried out. You sound like a nice guy.
You sound like a nice guy.
Thanks.
Corners were cut on pretty much everything done and they did a lot of it themselves, not the roof, but the wiring and the plastering were DIY.
Plastering over wallpaper in another room was a good one, as was not supporting the shower tray in the ensuite. And the window frames that he fitted not being correct, so water ran off the bottom of them down the back of the render. That one cost a few K to fix too, but I hadn't expected the surveyor to pick up on that.
To give him credit though the joinery that he did was beautifully done.
Ah, well that's different, I redact my previous statement. Karma's a bitch.
(been there, was 15k to sort in my case)
I'm all annoyed again now! After 9 years we've spotted and corrected most of the mistakes. We still have a dead plug socket because the wires were cut too short and don't quite reach, but other than that it is water tight. I suspect that there are some issues with the central heating pipe runs and the electrical consumer unit is behind a rather nice fitted oak window seat and can only be properly accessed with a chain saw.
I don't expect a surveyor to find everyting... but an 8m stretch of damp and a faulty roof?
So, we instructed a 2nd "expert's opinion" from a 2nd surveyor.
They've been to the house today to take photo's/assess the area etc and her initial comment was:
"There's not a chance I would have assumed that to be anything other than asbestos containing. Visibility good, access good, varying levels of decor and a good contrast between the timber fascia and asbestos soffit."
Mr Surveyor is going to get a strongly worded email with a view to recouping all of the associated costs.
If he still thinks he's right we'll go through the independent complaints procedure.
Bit of an update:
Had the 2nd survey done on Friday, report in today.
"I am sorry that in this particular instance, and contrary to the advice you were given, asbestos
containing materials have been identified externally to at least some of the soffit boards around the house and I hope that this matter can now be resolved without further delay, and to your satisfaction. "
Hopefully that will help with the complaint 🤞
Going to get shot down for this but here goes…
I agree that most building purchase surveys aren’t worth the paper they are written on (unless it is for establishing that the movement in the walls which become evident three years down the line were not visible when you brought the building). For the extent of investigation the costs are crazy too.
But
Unless you commission a survey by a reputable professional roofer (with an extra fee and permission form the seller) in the majority of cases you are not going to pick up issues like the roof lap issues Harry describes unless the roofer who has done the work has handily cut corners next to accessible roof windows, terraces or other easily accessible locations. You are basically relying on a professional opinion about what looks right from ground level.
I don’t do valuation or home buyer reports but do do condition surveys on historic buildings (for the most part for significantly less than £3000 a throw). Unless you can see evidence of water penetration/broken or slipped slates/something looking ‘wrong’ it is difficult to be definitive about roofs, particularly when it is an issue to do with head and side laps because generally the battens are concealed by roofing felt or sarking boards. I have picked up issues like you describe in the past but usually only with the help of access to the roof. I can’t say for certain that I have never missed something like that. I just do my best and use my experience of what looks right/wrong.
Having said that if you can lift a natural slate by 4” I would have said there was an issue.
I had a surveyors report and then binged a local builder 3 hours time to go and have a good dig round and verbally tell me what he thought. One was a few K one was a few hundred. Funnily enough he found a massive list of things, some annoying some somewhat interesting some properly dangerous. We proceeded but had a huge list of things to rectify with costs which we reduced the asking price by. The ‘brand new’ 25k roof was one area where if you actually went into the loft it was clear the roof wasn’t new ! The best bit was the seller, developers on their first project, wanted a 5k a week penalty from me for non completion on time. Fine. Mutual though was what Insaid and after a lot of arguing they did it. Agreed a 5 week completion. Oh how I laughed when I discovered no building warrant for the external garage. Took 12 weeks to fix it extra. I reduced the settlement figure and they asked me not to do it. Special. Anyway karmas a prick as I’ve found a load of other problems now.
OP stick to your guns.
Just to add the conclusion to this:
Finally had the response from CEDR and they have backed our claim that the surveyor should have spotted asbestos or made us aware of the possibility of there being asbestos in the soffits.
As a result they have informed the surveyor that he must pay back all of our expenditure to remove the asbestos.
Lots of time and effort/research etc but well worth it in the end.
Result 🙂
Certainly is and, if anyone is in the same boat, I'd highly recommend the process.
Very easy to do (time consuming composing emails/photo's etc) and everything is timed so there's no unknown timescale.