"Martin" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 23 May 2014 09:31:05 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 22 May 2014 11:57:54 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 2014-05-22 10:26:50 +0000, Tom Gardner said:

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".

I think this has now entered the realms of the absurd. One of the
reasons one employs a surveyor is to check there is nothing wrong with
the house that will cause it to fall down e.g. old mine shafts, dodgy
foundations, dry rot, subsidence etc. all come within the remit of a
surveyor. The scope of the survey depends on the buyer, too.
Second-guessing nature where nature has never before misbehaved itself
is not part of a surveyor's job and unless he's closely related to Leo
Petulengro, he wouldn't attempt it. Now, really, for me this is at an
end. Everyone has given their two-pennorth over their own experiences
and their own views. The person most closely concerned has, to the best
of my knowledge, done all she can both before and after the flooding.

I might agree if RICS hadn't produced this and similar other articles
about
flood risks on their website.

"20 Nov 2013
The risk of flooding is growing. Flooding could seriously affect the value
and
amenity of your home or business premises.
RICS consumer guide: Flooding
There will probably be an increasing number of floods in the future due to
changes in weather patterns, the amount of new building on low-lying areas
in
recent years, and other local factors.

Many properties which have not previously been at risk of flooding now are.
Of
the 28 million homes in the UK, over five million are currently at risk, as
well
as over 300,000 business premises and many more public and utility services
buildings. For most of these properties the risk of being flooded in any
one
year is still small, but for several hundred thousand properties,
especially
those which have been flooded in recent years, the risk is more
significant.

The increasing risk of flooding can reduce the value of your home or
business
premises and may make it more difficult and expensive to get insurance
cover. A
flood can threaten your safety, cause serious damage to your property and
its
contents, and will result in many months of dislocation and disruption.

This guide will tell you what you need to know about flooding and flood
risk to
your property (the land and the buildings on it), and what you can do to
deal
with this risk."

The guide contains this

"How do I find out if my property,
or a property I am thinking of
buying is at risk of flooding?

We recommend that property owners and
prospective purchasers should be aware of any
flood risk to their property. The first check is to
investigate whether your property is in a river
or coastal flood risk area on the flood risk maps
available on the Environment Agency’s website.
They show areas at risk and whether there are
adequate flood defences in place. The maps
will give you a risk factor for your property
based on its postcode as either low, moderate
or significant.
These maps give a general guide on an area only
and not specific information about individual
properties. For a more accurate assessment
of flood risk you can go to a specialist search
provider who will provide you with a more
detailed report about your property. This will
determine their risk from the different types
of flooding, including local groundwater and
surface water flooding risks which are not
included on the Environment Agency’s maps.
Prospective purchasers should check with
sellers whether there have been any incidents
of flooding to the property in the past. This is
necessary as there may be issues about the
property’s insurability for flood risk which may
affect the property’s value and the ability to get
a mortgage on it. You should obtain professional
advice if you are worried about potential
flooding in the future. A suitably-experience
chartered surveyor will carry out a detailed
survey on the likely impact of a flood on your
property and contents, with recommendations
of the steps to take to reduce or eliminate
adverse effects should a flood occur"

I omitted the URL
http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/mor...e-to-flooding/
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_IUPInEuc
=============================================

..
..

are we going for the 'longest thread without pruning' record?

My contribution

Mike

..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
...

---------------------------------------------------------------
www.friendsofshanklintheatre.co.uk


..