Surveys and Surveyors

[Lime]

As I stated on another thread (and others have too) a house buyer may need a surveyor if they do not have the expertise needed to inspect a property for themselves.
However to suggest that a survey provides a buyer with a stay-safe if-anything-goes-wrong-we'll-sue-and-have-the-problem-sorted solution are fooling themselves.
It may give financial reassurance perhaps but that, to my mind, does not make up for the upset and inconvenience:-
-Of unexpected work.
-Of the troubles the claim and repairs will create.
-That, at the end of the day, the buyer is left with a house that has had modern repairs.
-The house will be never as good as a house that hasn't needed the repairs.
(Particularly if you bought an old house because you don't like new.)
-The house is not the house the buyer thought they bought.

For those people who have no idea about property, a good survey is good and a bad survey is bad.
The problem they have is how do they know what is good or what is bad until it is all too late?

 

[NT]

Looks like a real opportunity to restore the public's faith in building surveyors has been missed.


NT

 

[Penners]

as self-employed piano restorer and piano teacher, it would take us ages to earn that kind of money, never mind for less than a day's work, and yet we're well used to BMW drivers sniping that we're ripping them off for labour at £100 per day

Do you tune BMW's too?

:lol:

Sorry - shouldn't laugh at my own jokes.

Yes - that was supposed to be a joke.

 

[Stephen]

Hi all

Having recovered from rant mode, been away to run the Roadshows (see sticky thread) and now suffering 'man-flu' I thought it time to post again.

Many thanks for the comments, all well made and I am taking on board the points made.

Following the fiasco of HCRs and now HIPs, etc the RICS is reviewing the whole range of what surveyors provide in the domestic market and how well surveyors perform (or not!). At present the public are presented with:
1) having to get a mortgage valuation for which they pay, but is not for tem and tells them nothng useful about the condition of the property (but might impose conditins that are often inappropriate)
2) having a HomeBuyer Report, wich although more detailed than 1 above has lmitations, etc, etc. Originally intended for 20th century straightfoward (unaltered conventional) 'estate' buildings.
3) having a Building Survey.

Some surveyors provide specific tailored reports to suit client's needs, but not all.

The level of detail, knowledge of surveyor, etc,e tc can vary significantly and it can be difficult t find a suitable surveyor forthe tye of property you wish to buy.

The present situation is thereore a bit of 'pot luck' with the surveyor, especially if you rely on the person dealing with the mortgage to organise anything other than level 1 above (NB Levels 2 and 3 should ALWAYS be a private contract between the client and surveyor regardless of what the lender or broker tries to tell you about "having to use their surveyor"). There is mis-selling of the different survey products and then the problem of whether the surveyor is truly competent.

In other words unless you do your homework and spend time finding the right surveyor for your purpose it is a bit of a minefield. Added to this of course is the fact that too many surveyors over-assess their competence and take on jobs they really should have turned down.

I hope so far I have summed up the situation reasonably well.

So what do we do about it?

RICS is keen to review the whole range of survey products and to re-consider formats and how they are prepared and presented.

It is impractical and inappropriate to expect every surveyor to go through a test of competencne for each and every field of work (or sub-field in some cases) they practice. The time and cost would be disproportionate. However, if the format required the surveyor to check certain things, to specifically work in a certain way that would surely ensure a level of competencne in the inspection itself? What are your views?

Alongside this we are looking to produce a range of publications (free and downloadable) that give technical advice and set out best practice for surveyors and a parallel set giving basic advice to the public. tHese would then set a bench mark against which surveyors must perform and will given the public something against which they can check a surveyors performance on specific matters.

The cost issue is more difficult, but if there existed a wider range of products covering specific issues/problems/elements the cost of the reports would be less than a building survey and yet more useful than a Homebuyer Report.

As a starter, can I ask that you let me have your views on this.

I am keen, and I know RICS is willing, to review how we deal with suveys at all levels in the dometic market. Your input on how you (the clients) feel and what you think would be useful, etc would be most apprciated.

I want tokeep this debate going and subject to response hereafter may start a new thread on this.

Thank you.

Stephen

 

[Mark]

I think that's a good response and I will certainly have a think and then contribute.

The one thing that really leaps out though is

It is impractical and inappropriate to expect every surveyor to go through a test of competence for each and every field of work (or sub-field in some cases) they practice.

compare to the legal or medical worlds.

I would really be concerned if RICS had an official view that it was inappropriate for surveyors to be able to demonstrate competence.

 

[Nemesis]

Well I think I can see what is meant. It's like a GP who refers you to a specialist at the hospital. You can't expect all medics to be expert in everything.

Hence the recommendation by surveyors that a problem may be present (evidence shown on survey) so a specialist engineer or damp and timber report is required.

Therein though lies, as we all are aware, a whole raft of difficulties (especially where damp and timber 'specialists' are concerned...) and of course further expense.

 

[Stephen]

Mark

I am not saying that surveyors need not demonstrate competence, but there is the real issue of how to test/demonstrate competence for each and every thing.

If we have 'best pactice' guides that will help all to assess what is considered appropriate.

All surveyors have to undertake a set number of hours CPD and there is presently discussion on how this should be monitored and whether a surveyor working in a specific field of work should show that at least x% of the cpd is in that field - to show they are keeping up to date.

You mention medical and legal, but tell me how you as joe-public would expect the doctor or solicitor, etc to demonstrate competence? Do you not take it for granted that if they say they do certain types of work and they can show a certificate (does not matter how many years ago it is dated) you acept that? If I decide to go to my dotor with my bout of man-flu will I ask him/her to show me their certificates of competence in dealng with man-flu before I let them examine me?

I agree that all professionals should be on a par with providing confidence and competence to the public - the question here is how you think it best for surveyors to do this when dealing with the various aspects of survey work on houses?

I am interested to hear your views on this. We do not want to shirk the issue of competence, but we need to get a balance between what gives the public confidence and is pracical to implement and administer.

Stephen

 

[biffvernon]

compare to the legal or medical worlds.

We don't want surveyors asking for the same pay as doctors and lawyers, do we? Stephen's pragmatic approach to balancing perfection against cost has to be seen in the context of buildings rather than surgery or prison.

(And doubtless the proposed range of publications will benefit from a spot of proof-reading )

 

[Mark]

this reply to Nem - I hadnt seen the other posts when I wrote it.

hmm. Perhaps.

What is meant by 'field of work' ? I was thinking of the full range of services, viz

Our members’ services are diverse. Not only are they experts in all matters relating to real estate and construction, but they can also offer strategic advice in the economics, valuation, finance, investment and management of all the world’s physical assets. From the construction of major public buildings to surveying the sea bed, from managing large property portfolios to auctioning antiques and much, much more!

 

[Mark]

Stephen,

thanks for that clarification. I do welcome your opening up the issue to debate, and I will do a more thought through response.

But now I have children to collect from pre-school so it wont be today..

Mark

 

[Penners]

The present situation is thereore a bit of 'pot luck' with the surveyor

Stephen - the following comments apply to levels 2 and 3 in your post above. Obviously, level 1 is largely a matter between the surveyor and the lender.
One the things I have noticed about people's posts on this forum is some degree of dis-satisfaction at certain details covered (or not covered) by their surveyor's report. And yet it seems rare to for people to give their surveyor a proper briefing before he* carries out his survey. I suspect that there is a degree of (unintentional) intimidation here. People feel that their own knowledge is so inferior to the surveyor's that they wouldn't know where to begin, in briefing him. They feel that it's a bit like telling the doctor what disease you have.

And yet, as I have discovered empirically, if you sit down with your surveyor and discuss the details of what you want your survey to cover, any special concerns you have, and so on, you get (a) a much more satisfactory survey, and (b) better value for money.

Do you think that the RICS might consider producing a standard briefing document, in the form of a questionnaire, for all private contract clients to fill in? I appreciate that any attempt to "tick-box" the process will always have its limitations, but I wonder whether such a document (which should contain a "free text" section where people can write their own particular comments and questions) might help the surveyor in arriving at a survey report that truly satisfies the particular needs of each client.

The document could also carry some disclaimers to the benefit of the surveyor - such as "surveyors don't have X-ray vision"!

Just a thought.

David

*In every case "he" means "he/she".

 

[NT]

I've been involved with 4 surveys, and not one was satisfactory. When I got this house I didnt want to play that game again, and for a number of reasons I went over it myself. I still think I made the right deicision in the circumstances.

I have a whole raft of ideas about where the problems lie, some have been mentioned, some not. Also what possibilities there are to solve or improve many of them. But I dont have the time today, it would take a fair while. Theres a lot that needs doing though, the level of problems & customer satisfaction in this field are really problematic.


NT

 

[NT]

Due to a delay...

There is significant public resentment at surveyors making no effort to even move a chair to see whats going on. The absence of legal requirement to do so does not mean a surveyor should not do it. The surveyor is engaged to look out for the customers interests, and is expected to.

A possible solution might be to recommend that items should be moved when within the reasonable physical capacity and time constraints of the survey & surveyor, and to add to the survey application form a note that mentions the option of the buyer having someone be present to move items at the surveyors request, and its benefit.

Does moving things introduce liability for damages? Yes. But its what the customer pays for and expects. Every business either delivers what the customer wants and expects, or they dont do very well.


NT

 

[NT]

> Added to this of course is the fact that too many surveyors over-assess their competence and take on jobs they really should have turned down.

I think it is generally viewed that this is something that guilds are specifically there to eliminate.


> It is impractical and inappropriate to expect every surveyor to go through a test of competence for each and every field of work (or sub-field in some cases) they practice. The time and cost would be disproportionate.

As a customer I dont find that acceptable. And I think you'll get the same response across the board. To have a trade body's expert workers be incompetent at what they do is not accepted in almost all other fields, and is and will remain an ongoing source of quite hard criticism.

If youre really convinced you cant make your members qualified to do what they do, there is a half-way option which might reduce the problem but not eliminate it. That is for the various extra qualification modules to be visible to the customer upfront, so each customer knows what areas of confirmed expertise the surveyor has. This way there are no extra costs involved, the incidence of unacceptable standards falls, and individual surveyors have a financial incentive to get more qualifications.

One way to make this happen, as well as kill many other birds with the same stone, would be to have a standard RICS form for customers to fill in when they book a survey. This form would include many things, including:
a) list all the available surveyor quals, and indicate which ones the surveyor has (and thus the ones they dont have are visible as well)
b) list all the available survey modules, which at once
i) shows/advertises to the customer what is available
ii) allows the customer to pick which bits they want
iii) allows the customer to say no to the trivial stuff at their own liability

Theres a lot of other stuff I'd propose to put on this booking form.

 

[NT]

Re those 'get a survey done' on electrics, plumbing etc comments, there are 3 problems with them.

1. The customer thought that was exactly what they just paid for, and are none too impressed.

2. The customer is getting no information and sees zero return for the money spent

3. BSes then require a slew of usually pointless surveys to be done, often followed by unnecessary and/or inappropriate work to be carried out. This, what effectively amounts to a con game, angers house buyers considerably, and the buyer sees it was all put into motion by the original surveyor.

There are maybe 3 ways the problems might be reduced:

1. The customer wants something, not just a get-out clause. It is not hard to train people to look for the main tell-tale signs of eg electrical problems, tick what of those issues are present, give some clue as to its _probable_ meaning, and state that it is outside the scope of the survey to test everything, thus these indicators & this survey are not a guarantee of the condition of the system. This I expect would be enough to satisfy most customers.

2. Look at a rewording of those recommendations to get additional surveys done. Naturally it has to be liability-relieving, but perhaps something more along the lines of:

'Our survey does not guarantee your electrical system to be fault free. You may or may not wish to have a specialist survey caried out on the electrical system.'

3. Sometimes it is evident that additional surveys are needed. In these cases it would help put the customer's mind more at peace to state what concern was found, what it _often_ indicates, and thus why an additional survey is being recommended.

4. A reputable survey should never recommend a further survey carried out by a con merchant. This is effectively what is happening today. Rather it should state some specific requirements for those that might carry out such additional surveys. Such requirements might be a recognised and genuinely valuable qualification, or a list of known genuine reliable companies, etc. Whatever it is it needs to be some way to specifically not recommend the con artists that are so common in damp & timber treatment etc.

 

[NT]

You mentioned publications. An additional way publications could be used to increase customer satisfaction and perceived value is to include relevant RICS approved pamphlets with survey findings for areas in which issues are found.

For example, if the house has rubber wiring, a pamphlet could state that as well as it being far below modern safety standards, such installs usually have badly deteriorated insulation, missing earths, are not EEBAD (explain briefly), and there could be a couple of pics of the sort of dreadful state rubber wiring is so often in, with insulation fallen off etc.

The cost of including such pubs is small, and its just what a lot of customers want.

Today many customers see surveys as exercises in giving as little helpful information as possible, and this has to change for customer satisfaction to occur.

 

[NT]

Proportion:

One thing thats important (ie of value to the customer, and often needed) is to give a sense of proportion to the issues found. Surveys dont currently succeed at this, and the needed missing info often results in uneducated buyers wasting significant money and time.

Eg 1: It was discovered that the kitchen sink drain pipe has insufficient fall. This may result in occasional blockages needing to be cleared. Most such blockages can be cleared by the householder. More information on how to clear drain blockages is available at ....

Eg 2: Damp readings are higher than is ideal in the lower part of the lounge and hallway external walls. There are no symptoms of a damp problem currently, but the householder would be well advised to avoid carrying out the types of works that could worsen the situation. These are explained in the enclosed pamplet 'Minor damp in old properties' which includes advice on how to avoid creating problems unintentionally. There is some element of risk that damp levels could worsen, though this does not usually occur unless inappropriate works are carried out or basic maintenance neglected. Mildly elevated readings without symptoms are quite common in old properties, and this is not in itself normally regarded as a reason to avoid purchasing a property.

 

[Stephen]

NT and others

This is brilliant and exactly what I need. A lot confirms the sort of things I already do, or are suggesting we (surveyors) do. Some are good new ideas and some I am not so sure about.

Keep the ideas and suggestions/comments coming.

For the time being two responses:

Access: I agreeentirely that surveyorshould not use the excuse that a moveable item of furniture was in the way. However, what may be moveabl to the surveyor who in his spare time is Mr Universe and moveable to the 8 stone young lady may be two different things. We may need to be careful n what we class as moveable. Further, we must respect that if it is a pre-acquisition survey te house belongs to neither the surveyor nor the client. I too often get complaints about surveyors being disrespectful. Any access, etc is all subject to the co-operation and agreement of the owner.

Competence: We are far from saying that surveyors should not be competent and we have inplace a series of measures that are meant to deal with this (probably as strong and strict as many guilds, etc). However, there are well over 100 'fields of work' in the world of surveying many of which would not apply to this discussion, but quite a number do. The question is how to deal with this. For example I have never sat an exam on timber and damp, etc, etc but through years of experience, goig on various cpd courses, reading books, listening to others, etc I feel I am now competent to speak on such matters. I may not always know the detailed scentific answers but for what I do day to day I have the required level of competence and I know when I need to get help and where to turn. How can I confirm all this to a member of the public without having to go on a course and get tested? Further, going on a course and passing it does not mean that you necessarly agree with it or will act in a certain way day to day. I recall smeone who did a conservation MSc many years ago and passed with good grades, but totally disagreed with it all. He/she thn went on to get involved in consevation and caused no end of problemsby claiming to be a conservation specialist (correct on paper) but going down a rather non-conformist path (not quite anti but not far off). An extreme example, but it happens.

I am very keen to resolve this competence matter. We do want to gie the public something that they can feel confident with, but it has to be workable otherwise it will never happen.

Stephen

PS
Excuse all the typos, but my keyboard is really playing up at present.

 

[NT]

NT and others

This is brilliant and exactly what I need. A lot confirms the sort of things I already do, or are suggesting we (surveyors) do. Some are good new ideas and some I am not so sure about.

Keep the ideas and suggestions/comments coming.

If you tell us which are not on the mark and why, ways round the problems or other options might get presented.

Access: I agreeentirely that surveyorshould not use the excuse that a moveable item of furniture was in the way. However, what may be moveabl to the surveyor who in his spare time is Mr Universe and moveable to the 8 stone young lady may be two different things. We may need to be careful n what we class as moveable.

Do you not think guidance for surveyors would be a simpler and effective solution than cast iron laws on this point?

Further, we must respect that if it is a pre-acquisition survey te house belongs to neither the surveyor nor the client. I too often get complaints about surveyors being disrespectful. Any access, etc is all subject to the co-operation and agreement of the owner.

Of course. When an owner choooses to obstruct a reasonable survey this could be noted on the findings, along with suitable caveats - perhaps another enclosed pamphlet explaining the issues. This might raise the visibility of the issue to sellers & buyers, thus encouraging more cooperation.


I'd also expect any survey that is more than the most basic one to include a climb into the loft if accessible. This can be regarded as both a fact finding mission and good PR.

Competence: We are far from saying that surveyors should not be competent and we have inplace a series of measures that are meant to deal with this

Whatever they are, they dont seem to be working effectively.

The question is how to deal with this. For example I have never sat an exam on timber and damp, etc, etc but through years of experience, goig on various cpd courses, reading books, listening to others, etc I feel I am now competent to speak on such matters. I may not always know the detailed scentific answers but for what I do day to day I have the required level of competence and I know when I need to get help and where to turn. How can I confirm all this to a member of the public without having to go on a course and get tested?

This is the classic issue with exams. There are various ways to gain knowledge, but only 2 ways to prove knowledge that I can think of
1. exams
2. track record of successes

2 only applies to fields where succes/failure can be proven, leaving surveyors just the exam option. I dont know another way.

How those exams are put together is another matter. Some options include:

1. Asking lots of small questions is traditional, but focuses more on trivial details than a person'a ability to spot issues and recommend correctly IRL.
2. Giving a series of real buildings to survey and assessing the results is another option
3. Assessing all surveys someone does over a fixed time period is another, with the requirement that so many buidings of each construction type be included in that (which will in practice extend the assesment period)

Further, going on a course and passing it does not mean that you necessarly agree with it or will act in a certain way day to day.

Sure, but that is a separate and much smaller issue you can look at later. First you need to get your surveyors sufficiently knowledgeable to do what they do. Sort out 99% before tackling 1%.

I am very keen to resolve this competence matter. We do want to gie the public something that they can feel confident with, but it has to be workable otherwise it will never happen.

NT

 

[NT]

Application forms are a great way to kill many birds with one simple free stone. Maybe there could be a standard RICS form for people requesting a survey. This might include:

1. Surveyor quals and missing quals listed, which will prevent a fair bit of the incompetent surveying that occurs.

2. Tickbox list for survey modules, so the customer knows what they'll get and chooses what they want. Also enables to say no thanks to 'interior trim' etc, while freeing the surveyor of liability for such. It is also effectively an advertisement to the customer of the services available.

3. A recommendation that if there are items in the way, someone present to move them is recommended but not essential. Again this would reduce incidence of dissatisfaction.

4. Ask if there is anything specific the cust want the surv to focus on

5. Optionally, the suveyor could add columns of prices by each module, making the decision clearer and reducing the need for customer interaction = time.

6. More items could go on the form as and when judged useful.

This could be a good way to align expectation with result, help customers get what they actually want, avoid resentment over wasted time & money, sell extra modules, and generally make the exercise more productive for the customer.


NT