On 20/05/14 13:06, sacha wrote:
On 2014-05-20 09:49:11 +0000, Tom Gardner said:

On 20/05/14 10:25, 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!

Of course they can - and should, particularly as it is a
simple prudent way for them to avoid the possibility of
future claims.

The surveyors of my houses have done exactly that kind of
thing and more - and I'd be miffed if they hadn't.

Of course a "house valuation survey" (to convince a lender
that they would get their money back if they had to sell
the property) is pretty vestigial. I'm sure there are cases
where it was sufficient for them to merely drive past the
property without stopping.

I don't know how many houses you've had surveys on but for me, it's four.

Four, the first of which cause me to run away from the property.

I've never encountered a surveyor who deals in things that don't exist and have never happened. If he or she starts that, the
house seller may well sue them.

If the surveyor can't insert suitable weasel words, they
aren't a competent surveyor!

I've just fished out my last survey, and the first paragraph
I read, on p5, states:
"No cracking of the masonry was found indicating that the
wall-ties are providing adequate support to the walls. It
is commented that in older properties where cavity walls
have been constructed, wall ties are reaching an age where
corrosion may well affect their structural integrity."

There are /many/ other such examples in the report,
including noting that he is unaware of any problems
relating to a nearby club!

On 2014-05-20 15:27:26 +0000, Tom Gardner said:

On 20/05/14 13:06, sacha wrote:
On 2014-05-20 09:49:11 +0000, Tom Gardner said:

On 20/05/14 10:25, 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!

Of course they can - and should, particularly as it is a
simple prudent way for them to avoid the possibility of
future claims.

The surveyors of my houses have done exactly that kind of
thing and more - and I'd be miffed if they hadn't.

Of course a "house valuation survey" (to convince a lender
that they would get their money back if they had to sell
the property) is pretty vestigial. I'm sure there are cases
where it was sufficient for them to merely drive past the
property without stopping.

I don't know how many houses you've had surveys on but for me, it's four.

Four, the first of which cause me to run away from the property.

I've never encountered a surveyor who deals in things that don't exist
and have never happened. If he or she starts that, the
house seller may well sue them.

If the surveyor can't insert suitable weasel words, they
aren't a competent surveyor!

I've just fished out my last survey, and the first paragraph
I read, on p5, states:
"No cracking of the masonry was found indicating that the
wall-ties are providing adequate support to the walls. It
is commented that in older properties where cavity walls
have been constructed, wall ties are reaching an age where
corrosion may well affect their structural integrity."

There are /many/ other such examples in the report,
including noting that he is unaware of any problems
relating to a nearby club!

But nobody can introduce a hazard that does not exist. This is getting
a bit silly. You're talking about surveyors 'alluding' to know hazards.
This was not a known hazard. No surveyor can say "this property is
close to the River Parrett which might give rise for concern", when
that has never, ever happened! Your surveyor's comment on the wall
ties is absolutely vital to the integrity of the structure because they
"are reaching an age". The water had never reached this particular
property.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

"Sacha" wrote in message ...

On 2014-05-20 15:27:26 +0000, Tom Gardner said:

On 20/05/14 13:06, sacha wrote:
On 2014-05-20 09:49:11 +0000, Tom Gardner said:

On 20/05/14 10:25, 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!

Of course they can - and should, particularly as it is a
simple prudent way for them to avoid the possibility of
future claims.

The surveyors of my houses have done exactly that kind of
thing and more - and I'd be miffed if they hadn't.

Of course a "house valuation survey" (to convince a lender
that they would get their money back if they had to sell
the property) is pretty vestigial. I'm sure there are cases
where it was sufficient for them to merely drive past the
property without stopping.

I don't know how many houses you've had surveys on but for me, it's four.

Four, the first of which cause me to run away from the property.

I've never encountered a surveyor who deals in things that don't exist
and have never happened. If he or she starts that, the
house seller may well sue them.

If the surveyor can't insert suitable weasel words, they
aren't a competent surveyor!

I've just fished out my last survey, and the first paragraph
I read, on p5, states:
"No cracking of the masonry was found indicating that the
wall-ties are providing adequate support to the walls. It
is commented that in older properties where cavity walls
have been constructed, wall ties are reaching an age where
corrosion may well affect their structural integrity."

There are /many/ other such examples in the report,
including noting that he is unaware of any problems
relating to a nearby club!

But nobody can introduce a hazard that does not exist. This is getting
a bit silly. You're talking about surveyors 'alluding' to know hazards.
This was not a known hazard. No surveyor can say "this property is
close to the River Parrett which might give rise for concern", when
that has never, ever happened! Your surveyor's comment on the wall
ties is absolutely vital to the integrity of the structure because they
"are reaching an age". The water had never reached this particular
property.
--

Sacha
======================================


Just thought I would add to the non pruned thread

A Surveyor can only do and report on what is evident at the time. He is not
a fortune teller. Common sense will tell anybody that.

Mike

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

In article ,
says...



I've just fished out my last survey, and the first paragraph
I read, on p5, states:
"No cracking of the masonry was found indicating that the
wall-ties are providing adequate support to the walls. It
is commented that in older properties where cavity walls
have been constructed, wall ties are reaching an age where
corrosion may well affect their structural integrity."

There are /many/ other such examples in the report,
including noting that he is unaware of any problems
relating to a nearby club!

If the buyer is not local, experienced or observant, they may not have
noticed the club or the number of properties in the same development
with repaired wall cracks, repainted roughcast etc.

I'd consider those are all examples of a surveyor, very correctly,
flagging up to his client, matters that were not actually apparent in
that property during his examination but which he considers worth
drawing to their attention for consideration and /or verbal discussion
with him.

No surveyor will risk being sued for his report's adverse comment on
local reputations of a builder or neighbouring club, etc but IME, most
have extensive and valuable local knowledge they are happy to pass on
verbally in a post-report telephone discussion.

Janet.

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 1:06:47 PM UTC+1, sacha wrote:
I've never encountered a surveyor who deals in things that don't
exist and have never happened. If he or she starts that, the house
seller may well sue them.

Oh, I don't know. My daughter and son-in-law were buying a brand-new house built on Limestone, in the lowest possible area for radon exposure, but because of the surveyor's remarks they could not get a mortgage until they had paid for a full survey by the radiological protection board. None of the adjoining properties had to, it was entirely down the the surveyor 'dealling in things that don't exist'.

On 2014-05-20 21:33:33 +0000, Martin said:

On Tue, 20 May 2014 13:06:47 +0100, sacha wrote:

On 2014-05-20 09:49:11 +0000, Tom Gardner said:

On 20/05/14 10:25, 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!

Of course they can - and should, particularly as it is a
simple prudent way for them to avoid the possibility of
future claims.

The surveyors of my houses have done exactly that kind of
thing and more - and I'd be miffed if they hadn't.

Of course a "house valuation survey" (to convince a lender
that they would get their money back if they had to sell
the property) is pretty vestigial. I'm sure there are cases
where it was sufficient for them to merely drive past the
property without stopping.

I don't know how many houses you've had surveys on but for me, it's
four. I've never encountered a surveyor who deals in things that don't
exist and have never happened. If he or she starts that, the house
seller may well sue them.

Why do you think the EA has produced these maps?
Is the house of your daughter in the dark blue are of the Somerset Level EA
map? The map was produced in 2013, before the last flood.

It wasn't my daughter who was flooded. She was never in danger of that,
even at the worst moments. The friend of hers who WAS flooded bought
the house two years ago, asked about danger from flooding and was told
it had never flooded. I don't think one can do more than that because
it's a matter of record.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 2014-05-21 09:07:55 +0000, said:

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 1:06:47 PM UTC+1, sacha wrote:
I've never encountered a surveyor who deals in things that don't exist
and have never happened. If he or she starts that, the house seller
may well sue them.

Oh, I don't know. My daughter and son-in-law were buying a brand-new
house built on Limestone, in the lowest possible area for radon
exposure, but because of the surveyor's remarks they could not get a
mortgage until they had paid for a full survey by the radiological
protection board. None of the adjoining properties had to, it was
entirely down the the surveyor 'dealling in things that don't exist'.

But...it does exist. It exists round here to a low-grade extent. The
fact that the mortgager is covering their own backs in terms of a
possible deleterious effect upon the property is either common-sense or
an over the top reaction, depending on your point of view.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

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.
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 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". When my
daughter was buying in the area and before I knew it at all, the first
question I asked her was "have you checked if there's a flood risk?".
In fact, they're too far from the river and are surrounded by fields
which got pretty soggy but didn't flood. Otoh, when they were renting a
house a few miles away in Cannington, a village, the water came to
within inches of their front door the winter before. That alone showed
how concrete and tarmac don't help in heavy rainfall.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 1:06:47 PM UTC+1, sacha wrote:
I've never encountered a surveyor who deals in things that don't
exist and have never happened. If he or she starts that, the house
seller may well sue them.

Oh, I don't know. My daughter and son-in-law were buying a brand-new house
built on Limestone, in the lowest possible area for radon exposure, but
because of the surveyor's remarks they could not get a mortgage until they
had paid for a full survey by the radiological protection board. None of
the adjoining properties had to, it was entirely down the the surveyor
'dealling in things that don't exist'.
================================================== ========

At least that is 'local knowledge', we have a problem with you people over
there on the North Island who see that we have landslips in very well known
"to us on the Island" spots, but to you over there, the whole Island is a
risky place. Rubbish

Mike
(Glad to see you pruned the dross off this thread, even though it now has
nothing to do with composting, but of course some are allowed to ignore
rules aren't they?)

---------------------------------------------------------------
www.friendsofshanklintheatre.co.uk
Tripadvisor 2014 Award of Excellence

In article ,
Sacha wrote:
On 2014-05-21 09:07:55 +0000, said:

I've never encountered a surveyor who deals in things that don't exist
and have never happened. If he or she starts that, the house seller
may well sue them.

Oh, I don't know. My daughter and son-in-law were buying a brand-new
house built on Limestone, in the lowest possible area for radon
exposure, but because of the surveyor's remarks they could not get a
mortgage until they had paid for a full survey by the radiological
protection board. None of the adjoining properties had to, it was
entirely down the the surveyor 'dealling in things that don't exist'.

But...it does exist. It exists round here to a low-grade extent. The
fact that the mortgager is covering their own backs in terms of a
possible deleterious effect upon the property is either common-sense or
an over the top reaction, depending on your point of view.

You aren't on limestone. Except in houses built of granite, radon
simply does not occur in significant quantities on limestone or
chalk soils. End of story.

The surveyor was incompetent and, IF he had been the buyer's one,
could theoretically be sued. But I will bet that he was the lender's
(though paid for by the buyer) and so could not. In this monetarist
world, you are not a customer - you are the commodity.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

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?

In article ,
says...
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.

We don't know how much else he reported, that the buyer either failed
to comprehend or did understand but discounted .If, for example, the
surveyor wrote WTE "This 50yr old property has never been flooded but
the EA shows a flood risk factor of X in this area".

Novice buyers will sometimes ignore factors/underestimate warnings
that a mortgage lender, insurer or more experienced buyer would hesitate
over.

Janet.

On 21/05/14 14:31, Janet wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.

We don't know how much else he reported, that the buyer either failed
to comprehend or did understand but discounted .If, for example, the
surveyor wrote WTE "This 50yr old property has never been flooded but
the EA shows a flood risk factor of X in this area".

Novice buyers will sometimes ignore factors/underestimate warnings
that a mortgage lender, insurer or more experienced buyer would hesitate
over.

Just so.

I'm only commenting on the statements made in this forum to the
effect that the surveyor didn't need to say anything.

We also have no idea of what the surveyor's instructions were;
it may have been to ignore flooding or whether it was worth 25%
of the purchase price (because they had a 75% deposit)!

On 21/05/14 16:35, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 13:45:00 +0100, Tom Gardner
wrote:


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.

The EA flood maps were available to all 7 years ago when both my daughter and
son bought houses.

I suspected as much.


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?

The surveyor has nothing to lose. He is insured.

He can lose reputation (meh!) and have increased insurance
premiums after a negligence claim (smaller meh!)

In article ,
lid says...

On Wed, 21 May 2014 13:45:00 +0100, Tom Gardner
wrote:


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.

The EA flood maps were available to all 7 years ago when both my daughter and
son bought houses.


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?

The surveyor has nothing to lose. He is insured.

His professional indemnity insurer is hardly likely to compensate a
third party's losses, unless the policy holder was held accountable or
responsible for them.

Janet