On 22/05/14 10:33, Sacha wrote:
On 2014-05-21 12:45:00 +0000, Tom Gardner said:

On 21/05/14 11:01, Sacha wrote:
On 2014-05-20 21:39:38 +0000, Martin said:

On Tue, 20 May 2014 13:08:12 +0100, sacha wrote:

On 2014-05-20 10:36:56 +0000, Martin said:

On Tue, 20 May 2014 10:25:19 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 2014-05-20 07:46:52 +0000, Martin said:

On Sun, 18 May 2014 12:13:42 +0100, Janet wrote:

In article ,
lid says...

sacha wrote

She only moved in two years
ago and her surveyor assured her the house had never flooded.

Aren't surveyors
legally responsible for their surveys?

Yes, but if he reported the truth he can't be faulted. A survey report
only reflects the current status of the property, it's not a future
guarantee.

The flood maps provided by the EA show potential flooding areas, with
probabilities of flooding, not just historic flood areas. Both my children used
the maps when buying their houses. It could be why they both live on top of
hills. http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/37837.aspx

Nonetheless, the property had never flooded and a surveyor can only
comment on current conditions in the property. He can't say e.g. you've
got wooden beams in the kitchen, so you might get woodworm one day!

He could have looked at the EA map and said the EA say the probability of
flooding is X%.

I don't know if he did, obviously but the fact is that the house had
never flooded and the reason it did was lack of maintenance by the
authorities, not lack of diligence by the surveyor or the buyer.

The EA knows the state of maintenance of rivers and drains. They take this into
account when producing flood maps. IMO if the surveyor did not consult EA flood
maps he is incompetent.

He cannot be held to be incompetent when he tells a buyer the truth.

He can be held to be incompetent if he omits relevant facts.

For example, if he omitted to mention that the roof was missing,
he could be sued when the occupants got wet in the rain.

The house had never flooded. One could say she shouldn't have taken the risk but she asked the right question and she got an
honest answer.

She got *part* of an answer.

A key point is that surveyors should ask and answer relevant questions
that you *haven't* asked - because incompetent non-expert are not
expected to know all the right questions to ask. For example, I had
no idea that cavity wall ties "wore out". But since it was a relevant
sub-question to the overall question of "is this house sound and worth
the asking price", he asked and answered it.

I know people that have sued surveyors for less, and won.

If, of course, the EA information was not available (to surveyors)
at the time of the survey, then the surveyor couldn't have omitted
the information.

She has looked into whether or not the surveyor can be held accountable and to the best of my knowledge the answer was "he can't".

Who gave that answer?

I have no idea because I don't know her. Knowing a little OF her, I would think she'd consulted a professional body.

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if RICS gave that answer!

The house had never flooded was the answer to her question.

By that token, since the house had never fallen down, there
was no point in asking whether it would fall down! Could
have saved some professional fees with that "reasoning".