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.

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.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

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 2014-05-21 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

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 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

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.

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

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

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.

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