|
Help! what composter composts cooked food etc
On 2014-05-21 11:14:14 +0000, Nick Maclaren said:
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. A man living on top of a hill in Salcombe has been refused insurance by Lloyds because he's 'at risk of flooding'. According to Lloyds this is because of his post code. Common sense responses need not apply! -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.com South Devon www.helpforheroes.org.uk |
Help! what composter composts cooked food etc
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. The house had never flooded was the answer to her question. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.com South Devon www.helpforheroes.org.uk |
Help! what composter composts cooked food etc
On 2014-05-21 22:03:56 +0000, David Hill said:
On 21/05/2014 22:12, Martin wrote: On Wed, 21 May 2014 17:29:27 +0100, Janet wrote: 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. The third party claims against the surveyor and the surveyor makes a claim with his insurance company. I'd have thought that this thread was played out, and has started to go round in circles. It's a long way from the original topic Oh yes! -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.com South Devon www.helpforheroes.org.uk |
Help! what composter composts cooked food etc
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:14:14 PM UTC+1, Nick Maclaren wrote:
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. well, quite. |
Help! what composter composts cooked food etc
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". |
Help! what composter composts cooked food etc
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. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.com South Devon www.helpforheroes.org.uk |
Help! what composter composts cooked food etc
"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 .. |
Help! what composter composts cooked food etc
amme wrote:
I am after a composter that i can throw anything in such as- left over food off the diiner plates including gravy, rabbit droppings and hay, Some people have strange tastes ;) |
Help! what composter composts cooked food etc
On 25/05/2014 09:24, EX_OWM wrote:
amme wrote: I am after a composter that i can throw anything in such as- left over food off the diiner plates including gravy, rabbit droppings and hay, Some people have strange tastes ;) Which is what I said at the start of the thread on the 13th "I still wonder on your diet with leftover food comprising gravy, rabbit droppings and hay. " |
Help! what composter composts cooked food etc
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. Does the property line in the flood plain - as per maps Martin referenced? If it does - then I would think it is just tough. |
Help! what composter composts cooked food etc
On Wed, 21 May 2014 12:14:14 +0100 (BST), (Nick
Maclaren) wrote: snip 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. It sounds like the surveyor was doing his job to me: More homes in the South West are at risk from radioactive radon gas than previously thought. New research shows the problem could affect heavily populated areas such as Plymouth, Torbay and Newton Abbot. Radon - which is linked to an increased risk of lung cancer - is normally found in granite, but scientists have discovered a significant risk in areas with limestone rock. Anyone worried about the gas is advised to get a radon test. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2654801.stm |
Help! what composter composts cooked food etc
On Tue, 20 May 2014 13:08:12 +0100, sacha wrote:
snip 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. Given that even by February the rain in the southwest had beaten all records for more than a hundred years - it may not actually be anything to do with lack of maintenance - but the fact that the houses were built in an unsuitable location. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter